Waiver of liability for damage to a vintage yacht undergoing repairs at RVYC.
In a recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision – Pattison v. Royal Vancouver Yacht Club, 2026 BCSC 747 – the Court determined whether the yacht club was liable for damage to a vintage vessel that collapsed from the club’s lift.
Facts
The plaintiff was the owner of a 40-foot vintage wooden vessel named “Reel Nauti” stored at the facility of the defendant – Royal Vancouver Yacht Club (“RVYC”) – located at its Vancouver Coal Harbour marina.
The plaintiff Sarah Pattison arranged to have the vessel hoisted on the RVYC’s boat lift, to perform routine maintenance. She signed a waiver.
After RVYC staff lifted the vessel on to a lifter platform, the vessel lurched sideways and collapsed, suffering significant damage. The vessel’s keel was pushed through the vessel’s floor.
Pattisson sued RVYC for negligence, arguing that RVYC had incorrectly blocked and lifted the vessel. RVYC defended, arguing that it was not negligent, and relied on its waiver as a complete defence.
Issues
The main issues were: (1) when did the plaintiff sign the waiver – before or after the vessel was lifted; and (2) whether the waiver is enforceable.
Decision
- The waiver was signed before the vessel was lifted.
The time when the plaintiff signed the waiver mattered.
The Court found that the plaintiff had signed the waiver while the vessel was still in the water, but not yet lifted, arriving at that conclusion based on the RVYC’s employees’ and the plaintiff’s employee’s testimony at trial.
RVYC could rely on the waiver defence.
- The waiver is enforceable.
When a party challenges a waiver, a court considers whether the:
- party who signed the waiver knew that the waiver would affect his or her legal rights. In the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party is bound by the document; and
- party relying on the waiver, as a defence, made reasonable attempts to bring to the signing party’s attention the terms of the document.
Here, the Court found that RVYC’s waiver is enforceable. The plaintiff signed the waiver knowing that it was a legal document affecting her rights. The plaintiff had signed similar RVYC waivers on three earlier occasions. She presented herself at trial as educated and intelligent. The waiver terms were clear.
- The evidence was not destroyed intentionally.
The plaintiff also argued that RVYC destroyed the video footage from the day of the incident that showed the exact time when she signed the waiver.
RVYC preserved video from the day of the incident, however only part of the incident showing the vessel collapsing was preserved. An RVYC employee explained that he had preserved remained footage that he deemed to be important.
The plaintiff argued that had RVYC preserved its video footage, it would have shown the boatlift events from beginning to end.
The plaintiff argued that there was a spoliation of evidence.
Courts define “spoliation” as a situation “when a party intentionally destroys, mutilates, alters, or conceals evidence relevant to ongoing or contemplated litigation in circumstances where it can be reasonably inferred that the evidence was destroyed to affect the litigation”: reasons at para 24.
To be successful with a spoliation argument, a party must prove intentional conduct. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to show that RVYC had intentionally destroyed evidence.
Conclusion
There are consequences to signing a waiver. By signing a waiver, a party often gives away his or her right to sue, and accepts the service-provider’s waiver of all liability for injury or damage to a property.
In negligence cases, a party should obtain access to the evidence, such as video footage. Should a dispute arise, parties need to take steps to obtain and preserve all evidence at early stages of the matter.
Link to decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2026/2026bcsc747/2026bcsc747.html
