This case has it all:

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1988 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 1186

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii45/1988canlii45.html?autocompleteStr=Crocker&autocompletePos=1

At 40paragraphs, it's also as short as it is important.

Remember also that it's possible for reasonable people to reasonably disagree on the outcome here: the trial judge found in favour of Crocker. The Ontario Court of Appeal, with one judge in dissent, found in favour of the resort.

At this level (the Supreme Court of Canada), Crocker is the Appellant/Plaintiff and Sundance Resorts is the Respondent/Defendant. Crocker "wins".

Remember also that a Waiver or Disclaimer is a form of contract and therefore requires, for our purposes here, that the elements of contract be satisfied

1. Read the facts of the case (paragraphs 1 - 9). What facts jump out at you as being problematic right away and why?

2. There is little surprise that the SCC found there is a duty of care. Reading paragraphs 27 - 29, why did the court hold that the standard of care had not been met?

3. At paragraph 30, Justice Wilson outlines Sundance's position that tubing is an inherently dangerous activity. Of course it is. As such, why can it not be said that Crocker voluntarily assumed the risk? Read paragraphs 33 - 35.

4. What elements of contract are missing, and how, from the waiver that invalidates it as a binding contract? Read paragraphs 33- 37

5. Do you agree with the result in this case? Why or why not?