1. Now we're going to let you summarize a case by yourself. (But if you feel a little shaky, proceed through this exercise following the pattern set out above in the First Exercise.) Read the following case, and set out the following: facts issues law conclusion / decision Dyck v Manitoba Snowmobile Association [1985] 1 SCR 589 Ronald James Dyck Appellant; and Manitoba Snowmobile Association Inc. Respondents. and Reginald Wood 1985: March 28, 29; 1985: May 23. Present: Dickson CJ and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. 1. The CourtThis is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba in which it dismissed an appeal from a judgment of Kroft J. in which he dismissed the appellant's action in negligence against both respondents to recover damages for injuries suffered by the appellant in the course of a snowmobile race. 2. The facts are fully set forth in the judgments in the courts below and require only a brief summary here. The appellant, Dyck, on February 23, 1975, suffered serious injuries while taking part in a snowmobile race at Beausejour, Manitoba sanctioned by the respondent Snowmobile Association. Dyck was a member of the Association whose rules, which Dyck had read, purported to release the Association from all liability for injuries suffered by entrants in races sanctioned by it. The competition membership application signed by Dyck also purported to release the Association from such liability. These documents made no express mention of injuries resulting from the negligence of the Association or its servants but the entry form for the race, also signed by Dyck, expressly set forth his agreement to save harmless and keep indemnified the Association, its organizers, agents, officials, servants and representatives from all liability, howsoever caused, in connection with taking part in the race "notwithstanding that the same may have been contributed to or occasioned by [their] negligence." 2. The accident occurred when Dyck's snowmobile collided with the respondent Wood who was responsible for signalling the finish of the race. In doing this, Wood, following his usual practice, moved well onto the track to signal the driver, being around the middle of the track when Dyck collided with him. This caused Dyck to strike the outside wall of the track from which he suffered the injuries that gave rise to this action. 3. Kroft J. found that Dyck and Wood were both negligent and would have found Wood and, through the principle of vicarious liability, the Association responsible for one-third of the damages resulting to Dyck from his injuries. He, however, excluded the respondent Association from liability on the basis of the waiver of liability clause in the entry form of which, he found, Dyck had full notice. On the evidence, he further held that the clause applied to release Wood as well as the Association from liability. 4. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Kroft J. regarding responsibility for the accident, holding that the accident resulted solely from the negligence of Wood. It, however, dismissed the appeal because of the operation of the waiver clause in the entry form Dyck had signed. It agreed with Kroft J. that this clause applied to Wood as well as to the Association. 5. We agree for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Huband on behalf of the Court of Appeal that, in the context in which it was signed, the waiver clause in the entry form exonerated the Association from liability for the accident, and that Wood is also exonerated because the Association was acting as his agent in obtaining the waiver. 6. On this appeal it was argued on behalf of Dyck that the waiver clause was worded in the form of an indemnity rather than a release. However, the context clearly reveals that a release is what the parties had in mind. Indeed at one point it is referred to in the entry form as a waiver of claim and the earlier waiver clauses underline that this was the parties' intention. 7. Counsel for the appellant also attempted to avoid the effect of the waiver clause on various grounds ultimately based on the thesis that it was unfair, unreasonable and inapplicable to the accident. One such ground was that the conduct of Wood in standing where he did on the track constituted negligence of a kind that was radically different from anything reasonable men could have contemplated. But surely this was precisely the type of negligence contemplated by the exclusion clause. This is underscored by the evidence which reveals that Wood's actions, though found to be negligent by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal, are not regarded as unusual by persons involved in snowmobile racing. 8. The appellant's argument on fundamental breach, however, went beyond one of mere construction of the contract and rather merged with his thesis that the waiver clause was unreasonable. Whether the doctrine of fundamental breach is confined to questions of construction, or whether it involves the power of a court to declare that certain contractual arrangements are so manifestly unfair and unreasonable as to be unenforceable, it is unnecessary to consider. The central fact is that a waiver clause of the kind in issue in the present case does not appear to be unreasonable. The appellant knew, or should have known, that snowmobile racing is a dangerous sport and he voluntarily participated in it. Though the Association had the control of snowmobile racing, this is hardly akin to the situations where the doctrine of fundamental breach has seen its widest extension, namely, where a commercial firm supplies to the public ordinary items of trade and from a commercial point of view dictates the terms on which consumers are to obtain these goods. The Association here is a voluntary body that organizes for the benefit of its members and the public a sporting activity that carries with it well-known and obvious dangers. 9. Nor does the relationship of Dyck and the Association fall within the class of cases, notable among which are contracts made on dissolution of marriage, where the differences between the bargaining strength of the parties is such that the courts will hold a transaction unconscionable and so unenforceable where the stronger party has taken unfair advantage of the other. The appellant freely joined and participated in activities organized by an association. The Association neither exercised pressure on the appellant nor unfairly took advantage of social or economic pressures on him to get him to participate in its activities. As already mentioned, the races carried with them inherent dangers of which the appellant should have been aware and it was in no way unreasonable for an organization like the Association to seek to protect itself against liability from suit for damages arising out of such dangers. It follows from this that there are no grounds of public policy on which the waiver clause should be struck down, an issue also raised on behalf of the appellant. 10. In light of the foregoing, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the issues of negligence and contributory negligence or other questions raised by the parties. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs