In Samis v. Vancouver, [1989] B.C.J. No. 262 the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, in discussing subsection (3), stated that what must be shown by the defendant is that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the nature of the terrain and the hazard it presented so that the plaintiff could recognize and appreciate the danger: "only with such knowledge could it be said that he willingly accepted the risks of the danger as his own risks". Accepting that interpretation and application of subsection (3), I conclude that there was no risk of danger, as in Samis, supra, and in addition, the plaintiff had knowledge of the premises.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.