What Happens if I Signed a Waiver and then Get Injured?

Generally, a Waiver is Binding if the Party Signing the Waiver Was Fully Aware of the Risks and Rights Involved With Conscious Intention to Accept the Risks and Waive the Rights.

Understanding Whether a Liability Waiver Is Legally Enforceable or Just a Bluff

Contract Document Many believe that liability waivers or release forms are undeniably valid; however, in many circumstances a waiver or release may be unenforceable. Furthermore, even when a liability waiver is valid, the rights waived will be very limited held applicable only to risks reasonably foreseeable and capable of being willingly assumed. Accordingly, avoid a presumption that the existence of a liability waiver puts an absolute end to the possibility of liability and potential for successful litigation. There will be situations where a waiver or release will validly apply along with other situations where a waiver or release will be inapplicable.

Understanding that Warnings May Be a Waiver of Rights Only In Very Specific Circumstances

The Supreme Court of Canada has said in the case of Saskatchewan River Bungalows v. Maritime Life, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490 at 499 to 500:

Waiver occurs where one party to a contract or to proceedings takes steps which amount to foregoing reliance on some known right or defect in the performance of the other party: Mitchell and Jewell Ltd.  v. Canadian Pacific Express Co., [1974] 3 W.W.R.  259 (Alta.  S.C.A.D.); Marchischuk v. Dominion Industrial Supplies Ltd., [1991] 2 S.C.R.  61 (waiver of a limitation period).  The elements of waiver were described in Federal Business Development Bank v. Steinbock Development Corp.  (1983), 42 A.R.  231 (C.A.), cited by both parties to the present appeal (Laycraft J.A.  for the court, at p.  236):

The essentials of waiver are that full knowledge of the deficiency which might be relied upon and the unequivocal intention to relinquish the right to rely on it.  That intention may be expressed in a formal legal document, it may be expressed in some informal fashion or it may be inferred from conduct.  In whatever fashion the intention to relinquish the right is communicated; however, the conscious intention to do so is what must be ascertained.

Waiver will be found only where the evidence demonstrates that the party waiver had (1) a full knowledge of rights; and (2) an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon them.  The creation of such a stringent test is justified since no consideration moves from the party in whose favour a waiver operates.  An overly broad interpretation of waiver would undermine the requirement of contractual consideration.

What is a Risk Willingly Assumed?

A Risk Willingly Assumed is a Risk That Is Plain and Obvious or Inherent Within an Activity and Would Be Reasonably Contemplated.

Another legal consideration involves whether a risk is truly an accepted risk rather than simply a known risk.  Further, legal considerations involve whether the knowledge or awareness of a risk relates to a risk inherent in an activity, a risk inherent in nature, or a risk created by human intervention.

Generally, even where a person received repeated warning of a risk and continued to voluntarily engage in an inherently dangerous activity, only the very inherent risk will likely be deemed waived.  Corollary risks, especially those risks arising from the direct negligence of others, remains without being subject to the waiver.

The law in this regard can be somewhat complex as various doctrines as well as statute laws may be applicable and therefore intertwined.  A decision involving various factors was well stated in Van Staveren v. Coachlite Roller Gardens Inc.2012 ONSC 5941 wherein it was said:

[58] The evidence of the defendant is that there were signs posted in the premises which stated “Skate at your own risk”.  Neither the plaintiff nor his wife had any recollection of seeing these signs.  However, both acknowledged that falling is an inherent risk of roller skating.  I accept this as a basic principle.  Like many other activities in life, roller skating does have inherent risk.  People who engage in these activities understand and accept those risks.  However, I do not believe that this extends to an acceptance of risks caused by the negligence of the defendant in creating a hazardous condition on the skating floor.

[59] As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Waldick decision, supra, the application of the volenti defence as set out in Section 4(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act will not shield a defendant from liability unless there is clear evidence that the plaintiff was consenting to accept the legal risk and waive any legal rights that might arise from the negligence of the defendant.  There was no evidence during this trial to support such a conclusion.  I therefore conclude that the plaintiff did not accept the risk of a hazardous condition being created by the defendant on the skating floor, and Section 4(1) does not afford a defence to the defendant in this action.

Statutory Obligation, duty of care

Furthermore, there may be a strict duty of care imposed by statutes, such as is found within the Occupier's Liability ActR.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, wherein those with ownership or control of premises or the activities occurring upon premises, are subject to a reverse onus or near reverse onus, of having to demonstrate that an incident arose without the negligence of the party with ownership or control.  As was decided by the court in the Van Staveren case above, the voluntary participation by Van Staveren in an inherently risky activity of which Van Staveren was warned was insufficient to waive liability against Coachlite when Coachlite negligently failed to maintain the premises.  Specifically, the Occupier's Liability Act states:

Common law duty of care superseded

2 Subject to section 9, this Act applies in place of the rules of the common law that determine the care that the occupier of premises at common law is required to show for the purpose of determining the occupier’s liability in law in respect of dangers to persons entering on the premises or the property brought on the premises by those persons.

Occupier’s duty

3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty 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.


(2) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on on the premises.


(3) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies except in so far as the occupier of premises is free to and does restrict, modify or exclude the occupier’s duty.

Risks willingly assumed

4 (1) The duty of care provided for in subsection 3 (1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters on the premises, but in that case the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property.

What Is Volenti Non Fit Injuria

The legal doctrine known in Latin as volenti non fit injuria (referred to simply as volenti) is a defence in negligence law and is therefore technically unrelated to contract law waiver of liability; however, the use of volenti as a defence to allegations of negligence liability often appears alongside the contractual waiver of liability defence.  The volenti defence is used when suggesting that the injured party voluntarily assumed the risk of injury where the risk of injury is inherent in the activity.  As such, volenti as a general doctrine would generally apply to the risks inherent in a variety of activities such as the activity of roller skating outlined in the Van Staveren case above.  Of course, as in Van Staveren above, where an additional unassumed risk becomes involved, such as a wet floor due to an improperly maintained roof, successful use of the volenti defence may be difficult.

Indeed, more than 125 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the volenti defence fails to apply where negligence of the defendant caused the injury whereas in Canada Atlantic Railway Co. v. Hurdman, 1895 CanLII 36 (SCC), 25 SCR 205 it was said:

The law, as now settled by the judgment of the House of Lords in Smith v. Baker, is that the maxim volenti non fit injuria has no application in the case of injuries occasioned by the negligent conduct of the defendants.

Summary Comment

The bottom line is simply that if you have suffered injury or harm and someone tries to suggest that you waived your legal rights, you should obtain legal advice as a full and complete waiver of liability rarely occurs!  Get a qualified legal opinion before giving up and simply accepting that your legal rights are lost.

Learn More About
Liability Waivers

Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

ATTENTION: Do not send any confidential information through this website form.  Use this website form only for making an introduction.

Solomon Jones LLPis an affordable Paralegal in:

For more information, fill out the form below to send a direct inquiry to Solomon Jones LLP

ATTENTION: Confidential details about your case must not be sent through this website.  Use of this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Do not include confidential details about your case by email or phone.  Use this website only for an introduction with a Solomon Jones LLP representative.
Head Office, Toronto

3950 14th Avenue, Suite 509
Markham, Ontario,
L3R 0A9

P: (844) 969-4LAW 
E: clientcare@mespc.ca

Proud Members Of:

Hours of Business:

9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM

By appointment only.  Please call for details.

Providing Legal Help within these Areas and More: