## Facts

- Michael Davidson owned season tickets for Toronto Blue Jays home games at the SkyDome in the SkyClub section, which included access to the Home Plate Bar.
- Until 1995, only SkyClub members could use the Home Plate Bar; in 1995, the operators allowed some non–SkyClub patrons into the bar.
- Davidson was not told of the change or warned that it might affect his ability to move between the bar and his SkyClub seat.
- The tickets described admission as a “revocable licence,” but did not state that the holder had to produce the ticket when moving between the bar and the SkyClub seating area.
- On April 28, 1995, Davidson ate dinner at the SkyDome’s Founders Club and then went to the SkyClub seating area and to his seat.
- No one asked Davidson to show his ticket when he entered the Founders Club, entered the SkyClub seating area from the Founders Club, or was shown to his seat.
- During the game, Davidson went to the Home Plate Bar; when he later tried to return toward his seat, staff asked him to show his ticket.
- Davidson refused to show his ticket to staff and returned to his seat.
- Police became involved and arrested Davidson for trespass under Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act.
- Davidson sued the Blue Jays and others (including the police services board), claiming the arrest was unlawful because a ticket holder attending within the ticket’s scope is not a “trespasser” under the Act.
- At trial, a jury found that Davidson did show his ticket to the police and therefore was not a trespasser on the jury’s factual findings.
- Although the jury’s findings resolved the immediate trespass question, the trial judge analyzed the legal issues because of uncertainty about how the Act and ticket terms apply to ticket holders at large venues.

## Issues

1. Whether a valid event ticket (a contractual licence) constitutes a “right or authority conferred by law” such that the Trespass to Property Act does not treat the ticket holder as a trespasser while the licence remains in force.
2. Whether the ticket-holder’s licence arises only upon physical presentation of the ticket to venue personnel (i.e., no “licence” unless the ticket is produced).
3. Whether a term should be implied into the ticket contract requiring the holder to show the ticket on demand during the event (including when moving from the Home Plate Bar back to SkyClub seating), and whether refusal can convert the holder into a trespasser.

## Decision

- The jury found Davidson was not a trespasser, including a finding that he did show his ticket to police.
- The court’s additional analysis addressed the legal questions raised by the defendants’ position and the uncertain state of the law.
- The court rejected the argument that the ticket-holder’s licence begins only when the ticket is physically produced to staff; the licence may exist even where management chooses not to check tickets at entry points.
- The court declined to imply a broad “show your ticket on demand” term that would allow management to require production at any time during the game or upon returning from the Home Plate Bar.
- The court accepted only a limited implied requirement consistent with ordinary ticketing practice: a spectator may be required to show a ticket upon entry where personnel are present to verify admission.
- The court stated it was unreasonable to demand to see a ticket once the event had begun after the patron had already been allowed into the venue and to the reserved seat without challenge.
- In considering the ticket’s terms and the Act’s operation, the court indicated that arresting a ticket holder in Davidson’s position under the Trespass to Property Act would be unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- A sports ticket is generally a contract granting the holder a licence to enter and occupy the seat (and any related areas included in the ticket) for the event, subject to lawful revocation.
- The existence of a licence is not dependent on “activation” by producing the ticket if the operator permits entry and seating without checking.
- Courts will not imply terms into a ticket contract merely because they would be convenient for venue staff; an implied term must be necessary to make the contract work in a reasonable way.
- A narrow implied term may require the holder to show a ticket at the time of entry when staff are verifying admission; that does not extend to repeated production after admission and seating.
- Refusing to re-produce a ticket during the event, without more, does not automatically end the licence or turn a paying attendee into a trespasser.
- Where a person is on the premises under a valid, unrevoked ticket-licence, treating that person as a trespasser under the Trespass to Property Act is generally inconsistent with the Act’s exclusion for persons acting under a “right or authority conferred by law.”

## Conclusion

Davidson held a season ticket that operated as a contractual licence to be in the SkyDome and in the SkyClub areas included with his ticket; after he was admitted and seated without any ticket check, the court rejected the claims that his licence existed only upon later production or that he had an implied duty to show the ticket whenever demanded during the game, and it indicated that using the Trespass to Property Act to arrest a ticket holder in those circumstances would be unlawful.


Davidson v. Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd., 170 D.L.R. (4th) 559 (1999)