Reference no: EM133480070
Problem
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1988 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 1186
At 40 paragraphs, 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 - the "SCC"), Crocker is the Appellant/Plaintiff and Sundance Resorts is the Respondent.
Read the case and answer the following:
Question A. Read the facts of the case (paragraphs 1 - 9). What facts jump out at you right away as being problematic and why?
Question B. 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?
Question C. 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 risks? Read paragraphs 33 - 35.
Question D. What was the basis for the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision that Sundance resorts was not liable? Read paragraphs 12 - 14 and 28
Question E. And this is where I actually DO want your personal (or group) opinion: Do you agree with the result in this case? Why or why not? Make sure to make a LEGAL argument to back your opinion (you might want to contrast what the Court of Appeal says as quoted in paragraphs above 12 -14 and 28 and look at paragraph 29 where Wilson, J. disagrees rather strongly with their conclusion).