What is the volenti doctrine?

The respondents argue the judge did not rely on the doctrine in dismissing the claim. They submit that whether an occupier has discharged its duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that a person using the premises will be reasonably safe (in the language of s. 3(1) of the OLA), or avoid creating an objectively unreasonable risk of harm (to borrow from the general standard of care applicable to a common law negligence claim set out in Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1999 CanLII 706 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201 at para. 28 [Ryan]), requires consideration of all the circumstances. They submit that relevant contextual factors include the risks inherent in the activity taking place on the premises (in this case, that it is not uncommon for foul balls to leave the playing field and reach spectator seats), the appreciation of those risks by a reasonable spectator attending a baseball game, and the customs that have developed to guard against materialization of the risk (such as the calling out of a warning when a foul ball leaves the field of play). They conclude the trial judge properly assessed these contextual factors as required by the Act and the common law, and that he did not consider, let alone apply the volenti doctrine.