Legal Arguments/Issues: The central issue was the scope and applicability of a digital waiver signed by the respondent, Ian Manson, which was intended to release the appellants from liability. The specific contention was whether this waiver, signed for an initial trip, covered subsequent mountaineering trips taken during the same season.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellate court confirmed that the trial judge correctly interpreted the waiver as applying only to the specific trip listed in the waiver details, not extending to subsequent trips. It was decided that the waiver was clear in its limitation to the initial trip only, and no evidence supported an extension of its scope.

Background and Court Findings:

• Waiver Details: Manson had signed a digital waiver for a specific mountaineering trip on June 18, 2021. The waiver was prepared in a digital format due to COVID-19, which limited the input options to only one date.
• Subsequent Trips: Additional trips were undertaken without new waivers, including a significant trip on which Manson was injured. These trips were planned after the initial trip for which the waiver was signed.
• Court's Interpretation: The court found that the waiver clearly specified only the initial trip date, and there was no mutual intention or agreement that the waiver would cover additional trips. The trial judge relied on the fact that no further waivers were signed or discussed for subsequent trips, and that the scope of the digital waiver was clear and confined.

Costs/Award: The court did not provide details on the costs or any financial award.