The plaintiff brought a special case under Rule 22 to determine the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA) to a ski package transaction and the enforceability of liability waivers.
The court found that the CPA applies broadly to consumer transactions for services, including ski packages, and that waivers purporting to negate the implied warranty of reasonably acceptable quality services are presumptively void under s. 9(3) of the CPA.
While such terms are severable under s. 9(4), the court retains equitable jurisdiction under s. 93(2) to bind the consumer to them, with the onus on the supplier to prove it would be inequitable not to.
The court also determined that the Occupiers Liability Act (OLA) does not supersede the CPA in this context, meaning the occupier is not "free" to restrict liability for services where the CPA applies.