At Singleton Reynolds, our people are what makes us great. We come together every day with the common goal of providing exceptional legal services and ensuring we go above and beyond for each and every client.
The range of backgrounds of the partners, counsel, associates and staff of Singleton Reynolds enables us to offer a broad range of services.
Singleton Reynolds’ lawyers spend a significant amount of time researching and thinking about how industry or legislative changes could affect your business.
Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP is recognized as a leader in construction and infrastructure, insurance, commercial litigation, real estate and business law.
Singleton Reynolds has offices to serve you in Vancouver and Toronto.
How was Singleton Reynolds first established? Find out more here.
Recognizing the leadership that contributes to the company successes.
Singleton Reynolds prides itself in being a leader in corporate social responsibility. We encourage diversity, charity, mentorship, civic dedication and neighbourhood support.
Singleton Reynolds strives to understand the balance between your career and your personal goals and encourages our legal and operations staff in the pursuit of their interests outside of the firm.
We are always on the lookout for talented professionals to contribute to our team. Singleton Reynolds offers a professional and challenging work environment, with a competitive compensation and benefits package.
Our goal is to develop strong lawyers from student right through to partner. Mentoring and training start when you are a student and continue throughout your practice.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently released a decision which has the effect of limiting the application of Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act and reinforcing protections afforded to occupiers of land by the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited (“Schnarr”) involved two cases heard together for the purposes of the appeal. The defendants were both ski resorts and the plaintiffs were both patrons of the resorts. In each case, the patron had signed releases of liability and/or waivers which purported to release the ski resorts from a wide variety of claims. Both plaintiffs were injured on the ski hills, allegedly due to the ski resorts’ negligence. In the first case, the plaintiff allegedly collided with a piece of debris from a broken ski pole and sustained injuries. In the other case, the plaintiff was injured while using a tow rope.
The issue for the Court of Appeal related to an alleged conflict between the Consumer Protection Act and the Occupiers’ Liability Act. The conflict related to the extent to which a waiver could protect the ski resorts from liability.
Section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act imposes a duty of care on “occupiers” to “take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.” However the statute also allows occupiers to modify the duty through, for instance, a liability waiver. This protects occupiers who permit people to come onto their land for recreational activities.
On the other hand, section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act deems into consumer agreements a term that a “supplier” of services warrants that the services supplied are of a “reasonably acceptable quality”. This deemed term cannot be waived, and any other term in the consumer agreement which purports to modify this term is void. This is meant to protect consumers.
There was no disagreement that the ski resorts qualified as both “suppliers” of services and occupiers.
So, what happens when a person is both an “occupier” and a “supplier” of services? Is their liability waiver only effective for liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, leaving them exposed to liability if their services are not of a “reasonably acceptable quality”?
Appeal counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the two statutes did not conflict because each set of provisions engaged different areas of law: the un-waivable deemed warranty in the Consumer Protection Act permits a person to sue in contract, while the waivable duty of care in the Occupiers’ Liability Act impacted whether a person could sue in tort. Thus, the ski resorts’ waivers were effective for avoiding liability for negligence lawsuits, but could not protect the ski resorts if their services were not of a “reasonably acceptable quality”. The plaintiffs could therefore sue in contract.
[The plaintiffs] try to avoid the reality of a conflict between the statutes by submitting that there is a distinction between the ability of a party to sue either in contract or in tort. On that point…suggesting that the waiver is valid with respect to the tortious negligence claims, but invalid with respect to the contractual warranty claims, is a distinction without a difference.
As the instant appeals amply demonstrate, the result is a clear conflict. On the one hand, [the ski resorts] have lawful waivers that would exclude their liability for the injuries suffered by [the plaintiffs], and yet they are told that those waivers are of no effect by virtue of the CPA. It is of no practical comfort to [the ski resorts] to be told that their waivers protect them from the negligence claims but not from the warranty claims. The result for the ski resorts is the same. They will be held liable for something that they thought they had lawfully protected themselves against. In my view, such a result is both a direct contradiction and an absurd result.
Having found that the statutes conflicted in the circumstances, the Court of Appeal ruled that the liability regime in the Occupiers’ Liability Act prevailed over the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the ski resorts’ waivers protected them from claims stemming from both the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
The implications of this decision are broad in Ontario: the waivers used by a variety of businesses which are both suppliers of services and occupiers (for example: gyms, paintball arenas, ice rinks, nail salons etc.) may well afford those businesses protection even where the services supplied are not of a “reasonably acceptable quality” if the appropriate waivers are in place.
 Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2018 ONCA 313 [“Schnarr“].
 Ibid at paras 7-8, 15.
 Ibid at para 6.
 Ibid at para 17.
 Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2, s 3(3).
 Schnarr at para 65.
 Consumer Protection Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30, Sched A, s 7.
 Ibid at para 46.
 Ibid at para 51.
 Ibid at para 82.
For more information, please contact:
Firm News | Apr 29, 2019
News + Insights | Mar 11, 2019
Firm News | Jan 2, 2019
Or call toll-free at 1-877-682-4404 or (604) 682-7474 (Vancouver) or (416) 585-8600 (Toronto)
This field is required