Judge rules release and waiver barred any claim regarding accident on set
In a personal injury action brought by an actor, the Ontario Superior Court held that a release and waiver she executed clearly applied and unequivocally barred her from bringing any claim in relation to an accident on set.
In Atkinson v. Scouts Honour Inc., 2026 ONSC 2632, the plaintiff was an actor who participated in the filming of a commercial on Oct. 15–16, 2020. She was not a union member of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television, and Radio Artists (ACTRA).
Before the incident on Oct. 15, 2020, the production coordinator told the plaintiff about the planned scenes, including one that would require her to fall back onto two thick cushion mats.
When the plaintiff showed up on set, she explained her fear of heights to the director. Wanting the plaintiff to feel comfortable, the director showed her what the scene required.
The plaintiff attempted the scene 12 times. At that point, she reported that she had previously experienced a concussion and felt uncomfortable continuing.
The defendant – the television production company responsible for filming and overseeing the commercial – immediately stopped filming. On Oct. 16, 2020, filming resumed with no falling scenes.
After the filming, the ACTRA Fraternal Benefit Society (AFBS) approved the plaintiff’s application for benefits under the accident on set (AOS) insurance program. As required, she executed and signed a release and waiver on or about Mar. 22, 2021.
On Oct. 6, 2022, the plaintiff commenced an action alleging personal injuries, including a concussion, due to the filming. She asserted negligence, negligent misrepresentation, contractual breach, and breaches of fiduciary duty and honest performance.
In a statement of defence served on July 14, 2023, the defendant alleged that the AFBS release and waiver barred the plaintiff’s action and released the defendant from any liability regarding the alleged injuries.
The defendant moved for summary judgment. Seeking to enforce the release and waiver, it alleged that the document prevented the plaintiff from recovering against it for the injuries and damages allegedly arising from the incident.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favour and dismissed the action. The court ruled that the release and waiver signed by the plaintiff
barred her claims.
The court explained that the release and waiver had straightforward terms providing the following:
The court determined that the plaintiff was not confused and instead clearly understood the content, nature, and character of the release and waiver before voluntarily signing it. The court noted that the plaintiff had:
The court saw no misrepresentations about the release and waiver, no unconscionability in the exclusion clause, and no applicable public policy considerations that triggered the court’s residual power to grant relief against an exclusion clause.
