Grouse for sale

I did the Zipline thing at Cougar Mountain (Superfly?) and I remember signing waivers for myself and the kids.
But I don't recall ever signing anything when I go skiing. Are they both the same in the eyes of the law? Even if my (minor) teenager buys a lift ticket?

Every ski hill I have skied at has them. Whistler you sign online for a pass or edge card (cant say I've bought a ticked from the ticket window anytime recently)

Every ski hill I have skied at has them. Whistler you sign online for a pass or edge card (cant say I've bought a ticked from the ticket window anytime recently)

That's what I'm referring to….ticket window purchases. Seymour and Cypress will certainly give you a day pass without any signing anything.
I travel and ski in a few places and outside of buying an Edge card, I have not had to sign for the privilege of day skiing. Even in the notoriously litigious USofA. Jackson Hole, Heavenly, Squaw, Crested Butte, Brighton, Sunshine, Kicking Horse, etc…
In fact, I seem to recall a certain place in northern Vancouver Island (Mount Cain?) that didn't even have that waiver on their ticket…they simply stamped the back of my hand.

Does anyone have a link to an overlay / map of the property that is for sale?

Can't seem to find anything on the net.

Not specifically the land for sale, but the 2007 DNV Fromme Mountain Sustainable Trail Use and Classification Plan shows private ownership down to Pipeline.

Well that's easy, if new owners have a different agenda a blockade on the road to prevent any non lift access to Grouse.

I think they are now up for some award … they did bring, directly or indirectly, hundreds of millions of $$$ onto the North Shore over the last 35 years and millions of people out to the outdoors.
t.

Illegal Trailbuilder of the Year award? Bout frickin time they had something like this

People keep saying that "waivers don't mean anything"- well at least in BC they really do.

I am not sure why the myth of the "meaningless waiver" is so hard to kill but it keeps coming back - often to the detriment of small operators who don't take enough care with them.

Isildar Test Here (Isildar vs. Rideau Diving Supply). This was used in the Whistler zipline decision. (Which includes waivers signed under the Occupiers Liability Act.) The attached document thoroughly shows how the courts in BC will uphold an event involving a waiver. (and how and why a waiver will fail in court i.e. make sure you cross your T's and everything abides by the Isildar test and your company or organization should survive a potential lawsuit.)

Interesting footnote from the document regarding the Occupiers Liability Act:

3 Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2., 3.3; While the Occupiers’ Liability Act generally permits for the use of waivers as instruments for decreasing exposure to liability, case law has largely driven the particulars of their application in the context of high risk sports. This runs in stark contrast to other international jurisdictions that have
explicitly legislated the use of waivers, and other aspects of liability, in this milieu. See,e.g., Colorado Ski Safety
Act. C.R.S. § 33-44-103.

"Ski resorts now often attempt to rely upon terms or conditions printed upon the
face or reverse of a lift ticket and on signage displayed prominently in the ski area.
Though less desirable than a signed release or waiver, the courts have found such releases or waivers sufficient where the defendant resort is able to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to bring the contractual terms regarding the exclusion of liability to the patron’s attention."

Interesting reading.
I can't recall ever having this printed waiver brought to my or anyone's attention whilst purchasing a day pass.

"Ski resorts now often attempt to rely upon terms or conditions printed upon the
face or reverse of a lift ticket and on signage displayed prominently in the ski area.
Though less desirable than a signed release or waiver, the courts have found such releases or waivers sufficient where the defendant resort is able to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to bring the contractual terms regarding the exclusion of liability to the patron’s attention."

Interesting reading.
I can't recall ever having this printed waiver brought to my or anyone's attention whilst purchasing a day pass.

It is hanging off your jacket zipper, printed on the back of the pass. I think hanging the waiver off of you might stand the test of making you aware!

It is hanging off your jacket zipper, printed on the back of the pass. I think hanging the waiver off of you might stand the test of making you aware!

I don't often stare at the small print at my crotch.

I would think that having two customers on the zip line at a time is negligence? But looking at the date of incident maybe it was allowed then. I base this on a Zip-Trek (The one in Carlton Lodge that lines people up by the Fitz Lift) I did back in like '12 or '13.

Is equipment; harnesses, rope, anchors, cable that isn't properly maintained covered in a "waiver"?

Just put the "Legal Jargon" into Google translate:

"Yep 2 folks on a line is the companies fck up- the company even said that they fcked up in court. But you signed a thing that says you won't sue even if the company F*cks up- so well too bad for you."

Don't know if it is in the decision - but I would think the waiver would cover equipment.

Just put the "Legal Jargon" into Google translate:

"Yep 2 folks on a line is the companies fck up- the company even said that they fcked up in court. But you signed a thing that says you won't sue even if the company F*cks up- so well too bad for you."

Don't know if it is in the decision - but I would think the waiver would cover equipment.

I would think that if the equipment is faulty or in disrepair due to the owners negligence then they would be found liable, no matter what their waivers say. They can't reasonable expect to have the customers check the equipment to see that it is in fact safe.