A precedent setting judgement was released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, addressing if the Province of BC can be liable for an amateur athlete’s brain injury following a martial arts competition hosted by a private promoter. In short it was found such allegations can be tested in court.
By way of background the Plaintiff Zhenhuan Lei, who was a PhD student at the University of British Columbia at the time, entered into what was advertised as a light contact martial arts tournament. He was struck in the head multiple times at the tournament. He eventually lost consciousness and was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma (bleeding of the brain) and remains in a persistent vegetative state.
Following this tragedy a GoFundMe was launched and the public have generously donated over $43,000 to date to assist his rehabilitation.
The Plaintiff sued various defendants alleging they negligently contributed to his life altering injuries. Simon Fraser University (“SFU”) was one of the parties named. SFU hosted the event on their property. SFU countersued the Province of BC arguing the Athletic Commission’s office was aware that the promoter was hosting events that the Commission considered to be kickboxing without proper licensing. SFU argues the Province should have shut the event down before it started and it was negligent not doing so. The Province tried to have the claim against them dismissed arguing that the Athletic Commission had no responsibility to shut down amateur events even if they are unlawful.
The court rejected the Province’s argument and found the claim against them could proceed. In reaching this conclusion Justice Groves provided the following reasons:
[6] I note that in terms of these injuries, they appear to be very severe and life
altering for the plaintiff. The said kickboxing tournament that occurred on October
14, 2023 may or may not have been an amateur event. It seems to have been
organized by five personally named defendants and a corporation, which are
collectively referred to in the pleadings as “The Western Canadian Martial Arts
Championship Defendants.” Additionally, there seems to be, in this cast of
characters, three other individually named persons and perhaps a corporation who
are known as “The World Kickboxing and Karate Union Canada Defendants.” There
seems to be some combination of activity between these two groups and these
various individuals which organized the event at which the plaintiff claims he was
severely injured...
[17] As I understand SFU’s position, and on this point I accept their argument,
there has been no real judicial determination or litigation about the scope of this
legislation and the reasonable scope or the total scope of the possibility under the
ACA of the BCAC to protect the public. In their argument they set up a somewhat
complex path to, they say, meet their claim. They allege that the tournament was a
kickboxing tournament which they say was subject to regulation under the BCAC
and under the ACA. They say that the BCAC was aware that these persons were
setting up this tournament at SFU and were engaged in an activity that was prima
facie within the regulatory mandate given to the BCAC under the ACA and further
that the BCAC was aware that the tournament defendants were not operating in
compliance with the act…
22] As for the argument that the Province does not owe SFU a duty, I agree, as
argued by SFU, that a claim for indemnity can arguably give rise to a duty. But also,
as noted in Canada (Attorney General) v. Frazier, 2022 BCCA 379, citing and relying
on R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, a private law duty of care
may arise through a combination of specific interventions between parties and
government actors, statutory powers, and duties. As I understand SFU’s argument,
the knowledge of the BCAC, his interaction with the various kickboxing defendants,
his actions against these kickboxing defendants, and all those things together may
give rise to a private law duty to those subsequently injured by the actions of those
kickboxing defendants. Again, this is perhaps a novel or complex argument, but not
one for which, at this early stage, it can clearly be said it is bound to fail. Based on
what I have said, the Province’s application to strike the claim must be dismissed as
I cannot conclude that SFU’s claim against the Province is bound to fail.
Combat Sports Law 