I Signed a Waiver and Got Hurt in Ontario: Can I Still Make a Claim?

You signed a waiver. Maybe on a tablet at a trampoline park, in a stack of forms at a gym, or with one click when you bought a ski pass. Then you got hurt, or your child did. Now you are wondering whether that signature closed the door.

Two things get said about waivers, and both are wrong. The first is "you signed, so it is over". The second is "waivers are worthless, everyone knows that". The truth in Ontario sits between them. Signing a waiver does not automatically end a claim. It does not automatically leave one standing either.

For this guide we went to the source. We searched the Court of Appeal for Ontario's own website for every decision since 2011 in which an injured person was met with a waiver or with the argument that they had accepted the risk. We found four, and read them. Two skiers were held to their waivers. A go-kart race director and a cyclist were not stopped by theirs. This guide explains why, in plain words, and what the statute itself says about the questions those four cases do not answer.

If you were hurt on someone else's property, our occupiers' liability lawyers can read your waiver with you. This article is general information about Ontario law in 2026. It is not legal advice about your own situation.

Did I sign my rights away when I signed a waiver?

Not automatically. In Ontario a waiver can stop an injury claim, and courts do enforce them. But a waiver only works for the people it names, for the risks it covers, and where the law allows it. Whether yours holds depends on its words and how you signed.

Start with what a waiver is. It is a contract. You agree not to hold a business responsible if you are hurt, and in return you are let in. Ontario law allows this. The Occupiers' Liability Act says the person in control of a property owes a duty to take reasonable care that people on it are reasonably safe. The same section then says that duty applies "except in so far as the occupier of premises is free to and does restrict, modify or exclude the occupier's duty".

So the starting point is not in your favour. A business is allowed to limit its duty to you, and a signed waiver is the usual way it does so.

But three things have to be true before a waiver ends a claim:

1. The waiver has to cover the person you are claiming against. A waiver protects the people it names and no one else.
2. The law has to allow that kind of waiver. Some rights cannot be signed away.
3. The business has to have done what the statute requires to bring the waiver to your attention.

Each of those has been the deciding point in a real case or sits in the statute's own words. The sections below take them one at a time.

One more thing. Almost everyone signs these forms without reading them. That is not a character flaw. It is how the forms are designed to be signed: at a counter, with a line behind you and a child pulling at your sleeve. Nothing in this guide blames you for signing.

What should I do this week?

Get a copy of what you signed, write down how you signed it, and note your deadline. In Ontario you generally have two years from the day of the injury to start a lawsuit. Do those three things before you decide anything about the claim.

Here is the list, in order.

1. Ask for a copy of the waiver. Email the business and ask for the document you signed, with the date and time of signing. If it was online, look in your email for a confirmation. If it was on a kiosk or tablet, ask for the record of your signature. You cannot judge a waiver you have not read.
2. Write down how you signed it, today. Was it on paper, a tablet, a kiosk or a website? How long did you have? Did anyone tell you what it was, or point to any part of it? Was there a line behind you? Could you scroll through it, or was there only a box to tick? Did you sign for a child? These details fade quickly, and they matter.
3. Write down what hurt you. Not the injury, the cause. Was it the ordinary risk of the activity, like landing badly on a trampoline? Or was it something else: broken equipment, a wet floor in the lobby, a staff member's mistake, another customer?
4. Keep everything from that day. The receipt, the wristband, the booking email, photos, the names of the people you were with.
5. Get medical care and keep the records. Tell the doctor how it happened.
6. Note the two year mark. Section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 sets a basic limitation period of two years from the day the claim was discovered. For a child, section 6 says that period does not run while the child is a minor and has no litigation guardian for the claim. Other deadlines can be much shorter. A fall on snow or ice has a 60 day written notice, which our guide to slipping on ice in Ontario explains.

Do not sign anything new. If the business or its insurer sends you a form after the injury, such as an incident report that ends with a release, read it before you sign it and keep a copy.

What has the Court of Appeal for Ontario decided about waivers since 2011?

Four decisions. Two skiers were held bound by their waivers. A paid race director's waiver was void, because a worker cannot sign away the right to sue an employer. A cyclist's waiver did not protect the other rider who hit him. A fifth person won on assumed risk.

How we put this together. On October 8, 2026 we searched the Court of Appeal for Ontario's own decisions website for decisions dated January 1, 2011 or later. We ran 16 searches, using words such as waiver, release of liability, assumption of risk, willingly assumed, volenti, inherent risk, minor, and the names of activities (ski, gym, fitness, trampoline, hockey, horse, climbing). We read the result lists and kept every decision that was actually about whether a waiver or an accepted risk stopped an injury claim. There were four. We read each one. Everything else in the results was about something different: class actions, criminal cases, bankruptcy, insurance contracts. One decision that came close was left out without a full read.

That is four decisions and five injured people. Two were held to their waivers. Three were not stopped.

What this does not show. It is not a success rate. These are appeals only. Most injury claims settle and never reach a judge. A trial decision that nobody appealed is not in this table. And the Court of Appeal decides questions of law, often before the facts have been proven. In the skiing decision the court noted that none of the underlying facts had yet been proven in court. So the table tells you what kinds of arguments have worked and failed at the top Ontario court. It does not tell you your odds.

What is missing. We found no Court of Appeal decision since 2011 about a trampoline park, a gym, a climbing wall, a waiver signed on a kiosk or tablet, or a waiver signed by a parent for a child. Those are the questions people ask most. For them, this guide gives you the statute's own words and tells you plainly where the law has not been settled at that level.

Why were the two skiers held to their waivers?

Because the Occupiers' Liability Act lets an occupier limit its duty, and the Court of Appeal held that Ontario's consumer protection law does not undo that. The skiers had argued that a consumer cannot sign away the right to services of acceptable quality. The court disagreed.

The decision is Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2018 ONCA 313. It decided two cases together.

In the first, a man bought a season ski pass on a resort's website. As part of that online purchase he executed the resort's waiver. The waiver had a heading in bold type, in a yellow box with a red border, that said "PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!" and warned that he was giving up legal rights. The following March he allegedly hit debris from a broken ski pole, lost control and struck a tree.

In the second, a woman bought a beginner ski package with a lift ticket, rentals and a lesson. The ticket had a release printed on it, and she also signed a rental agreement with a release. Nobody at the resort explained it to her. She had, however, read the wording on the resort's website before she went. She was allegedly hurt using a tow rope.

Both argued the same thing. Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, 2002 says a business is deemed to warrant that its services are "of a reasonably acceptable quality", and that any term that tries to negate that warranty is void. A ski pass is a consumer agreement. So, they said, the waiver is void.

The two judges below had each accepted part of that argument. The Court of Appeal did not. It held that the two statutes conflict: what the Occupiers' Liability Act permits, the Consumer Protection Act would prohibit. Where they conflict, the more specific statute wins, and the Occupiers' Liability Act is the one that deals directly with people on premises. The court concluded that the consumer protection sections "do not operate to void otherwise valid waivers" under the Occupiers' Liability Act. Both skiers were held bound, and their cases were sent back to the Superior Court.

Three things in that decision matter to you.

• The words "otherwise valid". The court decided that consumer law does not void a waiver. It did not decide that every waiver is valid. It said an occupier can obtain a waiver "within limits as defined by the common law".
• The presentation. One waiver had a bright warning box. The other had been read by the skier in advance. Neither was a case where the person had no chance to see the terms.
• The facts were unproven. The court was answering a question of law before trial.

So this decision closes one door. In Ontario, you cannot defeat a ski hill's or a gym's waiver simply by saying consumer law forbids it. The other doors are still there.

A note on timing. As of October 8, 2026, the government's e-Laws site shows the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 still in force and a newer Consumer Protection Act, 2023 marked "not yet in force". We have not read the 2023 Act, and this guide says nothing about what it will change.

When did a waiver fail to stop a claim?

Twice. A man hired to direct a go-kart race had signed a waiver, but as a paid worker he could not sign away his right to sue. And a cyclist's waiver released the organisers of a charity ride, not the other rider who knocked him down.

The worker. In Fleming v. Massey, 2016 ONCA 70, a man filled in as race director at a go-kart event and was hurt when a kart crashed into hay bales. He had signed a waiver releasing the track and the organisers from all damages, including from their negligence. A judge dismissed his lawsuit because of it.

The Court of Appeal restored it. He was being paid that day, so he was an employee. Go-kart tracks, the court explained, are not covered by Ontario's workplace insurance plan unless the employer applies. Workers in that position are given a right, by the workers' compensation statute itself, to sue their employer for negligence. The court held that it would be contrary to public policy to let a worker sign that right away. The waiver was void and the case went to trial.

Why it matters to you: if you were working when you were hurt, whether as a coach, an instructor, a camp counsellor, a paid official or casual staff, the waiver you signed may not mean what the business thinks it means. Whether you were a worker, and what kind, is a question to take to a lawyer early.

The other participant. In Kempf v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 114, more than 12,000 cyclists rode a charity event on a closed highway in Toronto. Each had to sign a waiver to take part. It released the charity, the city, the police and the sponsors from any claim "howsoever caused", including by their negligence. During the ride one cyclist swerved and clipped another's wheel. The injured cyclist sued the cyclist who swerved.

The Court of Appeal said the waiver "is a contract between the participants and the ride organizers". It was not a contract between the two cyclists, and it contained no term releasing other participants. It "was not a bar" to the claim. The court ordered a new trial for a separate reason, about whether the case should have been heard by a jury.

Why it matters to you: read the list of who is released. A waiver signed at a gym may release the gym and not the equipment maker. A waiver signed for a race may release the organiser and not the other racer. A waiver signed at a birthday party venue may not mention the company that supplied the inflatable.

What if I never read the waiver?

That alone will not save the claim. The law generally holds an adult to what they sign. But the Occupiers' Liability Act also requires the business to take reasonable steps to bring a waiver to your attention, and how you were asked to sign is evidence of whether it did.

This is the worry most people have, so here are both halves of the answer.

The half that hurts. In the go-kart decision, the injured man argued that he had not really understood the waiver when he signed. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that he "signed the waiver knowing it was a legal document affecting his rights" and that the business "could reasonably assume he understood and consented to it". That was enough on that point. He won for a different reason. So "I did not read it" or "I did not understand the legal words" is not, by itself, an answer.

The half that helps. Section 5(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act says that where an occupier is free to restrict or exclude its duty, "the occupier shall take reasonable steps to bring such restriction, modification or exclusion to the attention of the person to whom the duty is owed". That is the statute speaking, and it puts a job on the business, not on you.

What counts as reasonable steps is a question of fact, and we found no Court of Appeal decision since 2011 that applies section 5(3) to a kiosk or a tablet. So we cannot tell you where the line is. We can tell you which facts go to it:

• Was the waiver its own document, or buried in a longer form?
• Was the release language marked in any way, as the yellow box was in the skiing case?
• Could you see the whole text before you signed, or only a signature box?
• How long were you given? Was there pressure to hurry?
• Did anyone say what it was? "Sign here for your wristband" is different from "this is a release of your right to sue".
• Had you signed the same form before, or seen it on the website?
• Were you able to read it at all? If English is not your first language, say so to your lawyer. Whether that changes anything is not answered by the decisions we read.

This is why step two in the list above is to write down how you signed. A year from now you will not remember whether the tablet let you scroll.

Does a waiver cover every way I could be hurt there?

No. A waiver covers what its words cover. An injury from something the waiver does not describe, or caused by someone the waiver does not name, may fall outside it. Read what risks it lists and who it releases, and compare that with what actually hurt you.

Think of three questions.

Who is released? The cyclist's case turned on this. The form released the organisers. It did not release the rider beside him.

What is released? Many waivers say they cover negligence, in those words. The charity ride form released claims "howsoever caused" and "notwithstanding" that the injury may have been caused by the negligence of the people released. A form that says only that the activity is risky is saying something narrower. We did not find a Court of Appeal decision since 2011 that draws this line for a recreational waiver, so treat the difference as a question for your lawyer, not as a rule.

Where and how did it happen? You signed a waiver to jump on trampolines. You were hurt when you slipped on a wet floor in the washroom. You signed a waiver to ski. You were hurt in the parking lot. Whether the waiver reaches that far depends on its wording. If you fell on a floor, a stair or a walkway, a Toronto slip and fall lawyer can look at the claim from that side as well.

There is also a floor that no waiver in our four decisions removed. Section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act deals with risks a person has willingly assumed. Even then, the occupier still owes a duty "to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm" and "to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person". The next section shows that floor at work.

What if they say I accepted the risk?

Accepting a risk lowers the duty owed to you. It does not remove it. In one Court of Appeal decision a cyclist on a town trail was treated as having assumed the risks, and still won, because the town had acted with reckless disregard for people using the trail.

"You knew it was risky" is a different argument from "you signed a waiver", and businesses often make both.

The decision is Labanowicz v. Fort Erie (Town), 2018 ONCA 343. A woman was riding on a municipal recreational trail. Where the trail crossed a road, the town had installed wooden posts that sat in metal sleeves. One post had been removed. Its metal bracket stuck up a few inches from the ground, hard to see. Her front wheel hit it. She was thrown and suffered a brain injury.

The case was decided under section 4, the assumed risk section. The town argued that under that section it could only be liable if it had meant to cause harm. The Court of Appeal rejected that. The section contains two duties: not to create a danger on purpose, and not to act with reckless disregard. The trial judge had found that an unpainted, unlocked, easily removed post that left a nearly invisible bracket above the ground was reckless disregard. The Court of Appeal upheld that finding and a judgment of about $995,000.

Two more points from that case.

• She was not wearing a helmet. The town argued she was partly at fault. The court refused, because the town had brought no admissible evidence that a helmet would have changed her injuries. Blame has to be proven, not assumed.
• Section 4 also lists situations where a person is deemed to have assumed all risks. One is entering certain kinds of land for recreation where no fee is paid. A paid gym or a paid trampoline session is a different situation from a free trail. How section 4 applies to a paid activity is a question for a lawyer.

And from the cyclists' case: the full defence that a person voluntarily accepted the risk is for the defendant to prove. The court described it as requiring proof that the injured person, expressly or by necessary implication, agreed to exempt the defendant from liability. That is a high bar, and it is the other side's to clear.

What if I knew the activity was risky, or I was being careless?

You can still have a claim. Knowing that trampolines or skiing carry risk is not the same as agreeing that the business may be careless. And if you were partly at fault, Ontario law reduces compensation by your share. It does not cancel the claim.

People talk themselves out of asking. "I knew I could get hurt." "I was showing off." "I had done it a hundred times." "I let my son go on the big one."

Separate two things. One is the risk that comes with the activity itself. You can fall while skiing on a perfect hill. The other is a danger the business added or left: a torn trampoline bed, a missing mat, a machine that was not maintained, a tow rope that was not supervised, a post bracket sticking out of a trail. The cyclist on the town trail accepted the ordinary risks of riding a bicycle. She did not accept an invisible piece of metal in her path.

As for your own part: in Ontario fault can be shared. If a court found you 30% responsible, you would recover 70% of your damages. Our guide to what an injury claim is worth explains how a share of fault changes the numbers. Be straight about what you were doing. Your account will be compared with video, with witnesses and with the incident report.

I signed for my child. Is my child's claim gone?

Do not assume it is. We found no Court of Appeal for Ontario decision since 2011 on a waiver a parent signed for a child, so the question is not settled. The statute says a contract cannot restrict the duty owed to someone who is not a party to it.

This is the question parents ask most, and it is the one with the least to report. So here is exactly what we can and cannot say.

What we looked for. We searched the Court of Appeal's site for waiver decisions involving a minor, a child or a parent. None of the four decisions involves a child's waiver.

What the statute says. Section 5(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act reads: "The duty of an occupier under this Act, or the occupier's liability for breach thereof, shall not be restricted or excluded by any contract to which the person to whom the duty is owed is not a party." A waiver is a contract. The duty is owed to the child who was on the premises. Whether a child is "a party" to a form that only a parent signed is the question, and we have not read a decision that answers it.

What the limitation statute says. Section 6 of the Limitations Act, 2002 says the two year period does not run while the person with the claim is a minor and is not represented by a litigation guardian in relation to the claim. So a child's claim is treated differently from an adult's on timing. Do not rely on that to wait. Evidence does not keep.

What to do. Keep the form you signed. Write down how you signed it and whether anyone explained it. Get your child's injury treated and documented. Then ask a lawyer. This is a question where a short conversation is worth more than anything a website can tell you, including this one.

And one thing about guilt. Signing the form was the price of your child taking part, and every other parent in the line signed it too. It does not make the injury your fault.

Does it matter whether it was a kiosk, a tablet, paper or a website?

It may. The method is not decisive by itself, but it is evidence of whether the business took reasonable steps to bring the waiver to your attention, which the statute requires. We found no Court of Appeal decision since 2011 about a kiosk or tablet waiver.

Here is what the four decisions show about method.

So an online waiver has been enforced at the Court of Appeal. Clicking instead of signing with a pen did not save the skier. What the decision does not tell you is how little presentation is enough, because in that case the presentation was strong: a bright box that told him to read carefully and said he was giving up legal rights.

For a kiosk or tablet, collect the facts in the checklist above. Then ask the business for its record: the exact screens you were shown, in order, and the time stamp of your signature. A business that relies on a kiosk waiver should be able to produce what the kiosk displayed.

What should I do in the best case, and what in the worst case?

Plan for both. In the best case the waiver does not name the person at fault, or the law does not allow it. In the worst case it is clear, well presented and covers exactly what happened. You will not know which until someone reads the document.

Two honest points.

One bad line does not decide the claim, and one good line does not win it. The skiers lost on consumer law and their cases still went back to the Superior Court for whatever remained.

Sometimes there is no claim. If you were an adult, a paying customer, shown a clear waiver that released the business from its own negligence, and you were hurt by the ordinary risk of the activity, the waiver may well hold. It is better to hear that early from someone on your side than to spend a year hoping. A first conversation with a lawyer costs you nothing and tells you which case you are in.

What mistakes hurt a claim after a waiver?

The common ones are assuming the waiver ends it, waiting, losing the document, and signing something new. Each is avoidable in the first week.

• Assuming it is over. People who believe they are barred never ask. Three of the five people in the table were not stopped.
• Assuming it is worthless. The two skiers were held bound. Do not turn down a fair offer because a friend said waivers never hold up.
• Not getting the document. Everything depends on its words.
• Not recording how you signed. That evidence exists only in your memory.
• Waiting. Two years passes. Video is erased much sooner.
• Signing an incident form without reading it. Some end with a release.
• Posting about it. What you write online will be read by the other side.
• Leaving out your own part. It will come out. Say it first.

Key terms explained

Waiver. A contract in which you agree not to hold a business responsible if you are hurt. Also called a release.

Occupier. The person or company in control of a property: an owner, a tenant, an operator.

Occupiers' Liability Act. The Ontario statute that sets the duty an occupier owes to people on its premises, and lets the occupier limit that duty.

Reasonable steps. What the Act requires an occupier to take to bring a waiver to your attention.

Risks willingly assumed. Risks a person has accepted. The occupier's duty is lower for these, but it still must not act with reckless disregard.

Reckless disregard. Doing or failing to do something while not caring whether a person present is likely to be hurt by it.

Consumer Protection Act, 2002. The Ontario statute that protects consumers. The Court of Appeal held in 2018 that it does not void an otherwise valid waiver under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Public policy. A reason a court will refuse to enforce a contract term, because the law does not allow that right to be signed away.

Limitation period. The time limit for starting a lawsuit. In Ontario it is generally two years.

Litigation guardian. An adult who acts for a child in a lawsuit.

Shared fault. When the injured person is partly to blame. Compensation is reduced by that share.

How VC Lawyers can help

A waiver is a document, and the first thing we do is read it: who it releases, what it covers, and how it was put in front of you. We ask the business for its records of how you signed. We look at what actually hurt you and whether the waiver reaches it. Where a child was hurt, or where you were working at the time, we look at the questions that this guide could only raise.

The first consultation for an injury claim is free, and we act on a contingency fee, so you pay legal fees only if we recover compensation for you. Our guide to what a personal injury lawyer costs explains how that works, and our guide to how long a claim takes explains what to expect. If you signed a waiver and were hurt, contact us and bring the waiver if you have it.