Davidson v. Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd.

170 D.L.R. (4th) 559 (1999)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Davidson v. Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd.

Ontario Court of Justice
170 D.L.R. (4th) 559 (1999)

Facts

Michael Davidson (plaintiff) owned season tickets for home games of the Toronto Blue Jays (club) (defendant) at the SkyDome. Davidson’s tickets were in the SkyClub section, which included the Home Plate Bar (bar). Until 1995, only SkyClub members could access the bar, but some non-Sky Club members were allowed access starting in 1995. Davidson was not informed of this change or that it could affect his ability to move freely between the bar and his seat. Davidson’s tickets stated they were revocable licenses but did not state he had to show his ticket when moving between the bar and his seat. On April 28, 1995, Davidson had dinner at the SkyDome’s Founders Club (club) before going to his seat to watch the game. No one asked Davidson to show his ticket when he entered the club, entered the SkyClub seating area from the club, or was shown to his seat. During the game, Davidson went to the bar; when he tried to return to his seat, he was asked to show his ticket. Davidson refused and returned to his seat. The police ultimately arrested Davidson for trespassing in violation of the Trespass to Property Act. Davidson sued the club and the police, claiming his arrest was unlawful because the act was inapplicable. Specifically, Davidson argued that a ticket holder could not be a trespasser under the act because the act states that someone acting under a right or authority conferred by law is not a trespasser and his ticket constituted such right or authority. The club and police responded that Davidson was a trespasser because (1) his license was not created until he presented his ticket and (2) he had an implied duty to present his ticket upon demand when going to his seat from the bar. Although the jury found that Davidson eventually showed his ticket and thus was not a trespasser, the court analyzed the scope of the act due to the uncertainty in the law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership