The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the Trial Judge's
decision in Campbell v. Bruce (County), 2015 ONSC 230.
The plaintiff's claim arose from a mountain biking accident
on August 7, 2008. The plaintiff and his family were visiting the
Bruce Peninsula Mountain Bike Adventure Park (the
"Park"). The Park was made up of a series of bike trails,
along with an "Obstacles Area" with various wooden
obstacles where riders could practice skills. The Park was
unsupervised and open to the public with no admission fee.
Two of the obstacles in the Obstacles Area were
"teeter-totter" type structures called "Pee
Wee" and "Free Fall." Pee Wee was low to the ground
but Free Fall had a higher elevation. A rider would ride their bike
to ascend the structure to its pivot point, at which point the
teeter-totter would dip down and the rider would descend down to
the ground. Free Fall was located directly behind Pee Wee so that
riders could try the obstacles consecutively.
Upon his arrival at the Park, the plaintiff and his family went
to the Obstacles Area. The plaintiff successfully rode over Pee Wee
and continued to ride onto Free Fall. He did not have enough speed
to make it over the pivot point and began to fall. He attempted to
control his fall by "popping a wheelie" to the right of
the obstacle. He went over the handlebars of his bike and landed on
his head on the ground. This injury rendered him a
The trial proceeded on the issue of liability only, which was
focused on section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act.
The Trial Judge held that the County breached its duty of care in a
number of ways, each of which contributed to the plaintiff's
accident. The Trial Judge also found that the plaintiff was not
contributorily negligent. The County appealed on all issues. The
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
The County argued that the Trial Judge failed in assessing the
inherent risk of the activity. The Court disagreed. While there was
no doubt that the plaintiff, as an experienced mountain biker,
assumed the risk of riding on the trails in the Park, the Trial
Judge appropriately drew a distinction between the trails and the
Obstacles Area where the accident occurred. The Trial Judge was
"troubled by how novice riders or riders with trail experience
but not features experience, can self-assess when they may not be
aware of all of the skills required...".
With respect to breaches of the standard of care and causation,
the Court upheld the following findings made by the Trial
Its failure to post proper warning
signs: the County "could have and should have placed warning
signs regarding risk of serious injury and the level and type of
expertise required to ride this feature without serious
injury." The Trial Judge found that the plaintiff's injury
would not have occurred if more detailed signage had been
Its negligent promotion of the Park:
the promotional brochure "should have contained more detailed
warnings about the skill level required to use the features as well
as the risks of injury from being off the ground."
Its failure to adequately monitor
risks and injuries at the Park: several riders had been seriously
injured in the Obstacles Area before the plaintiff's accident.
The Trial Judge found that before the plaintiff's accident, the
County had no mechanism to collect and assess ambulance calls and
that employees of the County were not aware of earlier incidents at
the Park. The Trial Judge found that had the County been aware of
the number of accidents occurring in the Obstacles Area, they would
have taken steps that would have prevented the plaintiff's
Its failure to provide an
"adequate progression of qualifiers." The Trial Judge
found that Pee Wee and Free Fall were built in such a way that the
"next logical progression" after coming off of Pee Wee
was to proceed to Free Fall. The Trial Judge concluded that had
Free Fall not been the next logical progression after Pee Wee, the
plaintiff wouldn't have attempted the feature or sustained the
Finally, with respect to the issue of contributory negligence,
the County argued that the Trial Judge incorrectly focussed his
inquiry exclusively on the plaintiff's actions in attempting to
exit Free Fall. The County argued that the Trial Judge ought to
have considered the plaintiff's decision to try and ride the
obstacle. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the Trial
Judge had already concluded that the risks of Free Fall were not
readily apparent. It was therefore appropriate for the Trial Judge
to focus on the plaintiff's actions once he was in danger on
Free Fall, and not on his prior decision to attempt to ride it.
The Court of Appeal's decision is a helpful reminder to
municipalities of the onus on them as occupiers when providing
members of the public with sporting and recreation venues.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).