{"id":516,"date":"2020-10-20T18:03:38","date_gmt":"2020-10-20T18:03:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sblegal.staging.pxlcrv.co\/?p=516"},"modified":"2022-07-22T01:14:06","modified_gmt":"2022-07-22T01:14:06","slug":"moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the\u00a0Occupiers\u2019 Liability Act<\/em>, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (\u201cOLA<\/em><\/strong>\u201d) import duties on occupiers to take some care to see that patrons are safe while on the premises.\u00a0 The duty is not absolute.\u00a0 In the case where s. 3(1) applies, the risk must be foreseeable by the \u201creasonable\u201d system in place.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 Under s. 4(1), the risk must involve a \u201creckless disregard to the presence of the person on the premises.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0This year, cases in these areas have moved the goalposts on these standards incrementally in favour of defendants.<\/p>\n

However, occupiers also have to address the enforceability of exclusionary language in waivers and what the standard should be in higher risk sports. In these areas, the goal posts have moved in another direction. This movement supports caution in the use of older liability waivers. It also increases the likelihood of liability if the rules of the game are not strictly followed.<\/p>\n

Section. 3(1) Foreseeability:\u00a0 Onley v. Town of Whitby\u00a0<\/u><\/em><\/strong>(2020 ONSC 20)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The plaintiff was a member of a soccer team playing a night game at an outdoor park in the Town of Whitby. The field lights were turned on in advance of the game and showed no external signs of damage or malfunction.\u00a0 Midway through the game, the plaintiff sat down on the grass behind the bench, in close proximity to a field light pole. She felt a sudden shock upon getting up. She briefly continued to play before collapsing and being taken to hospital by ambulance, and reportedly suffered pain and scarring in her legs, feet, as well as PTSD.<\/p>\n

The Court accepted the pole was malfunctioning due to melted insulation from a lighting strike weeks before the game. No deficiencies were noted during the last pre-game electrical inspection conducted jointly by the Town and the ESA 40 days prior to the game.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong>Analysis<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

The Court preferred the lightning strike theory over the plaintiff\u2019s maintenance theory, which was raised only at trial.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

In discussing foreseeability for the accepted cause, the Court adopted the standard of the Supreme Court of Canada in\u00a0Rankin v. JJ<\/em>.[4]<\/a>\u00a0The Court accepted that light poles damaged by lightning \u201calmost always exhibit some overt indication of malfunction.\u201d This external indication was absent here, making it a highly unusual occurrence.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 There was no basis for liability on the Town.<\/p>\n

The Court also rejected that a more rigorous maintenance program was the answer. The Court found that\u00a0such a rigorous maintenance program required evidence that stray voltage had been a past problem<\/em>.[6]<\/a>\u00a0The Court otherwise accepted that it would not be cost effective and distinguished between streetlights and soccer field lights that were\u00a0used less frequently and so required less rigorous testing.<\/em>[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0Take Away<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

This case reinforces the standard for foreseeability and that it is the plaintiff\u2019s burden to discharge that standard. Where a hazard is unusual, invisible, and an exception to an existing system of inspection (particularly one supported by a governmental authority), the defendant can successfully defend with a reasonable system on the question of foreseeability.<\/p>\n

Section 4(1) Foreseeability and Assumed Risk: Karpouzis v. Toronto (City)<\/u><\/em><\/strong>, (2020 ONSC 143)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

This was a summary judgment motion granted in favour of the City of Toronto for injuries sustained by a man who was injured riding a skateboard at 2:00AM down an unlit paved path in South Humber Park.<\/p>\n

The park and trail were maintained and inspected by staff of the City but only during the day.\u00a0 At night, the trails were not lit deliberately. Upon riding into a tree-lined portion of the path covered, the wheels of the plaintiff\u2019s skateboard suddenly froze up. He presumed that his wheels jammed with debris.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 The plaintiff\u2019s expert opined the light level in the park would have been below human perception.[9]<\/a>\u00a0The plaintiff struck his head on the ground and suffered a brain injury.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

This case was assessed under the standard of s. 4(1) as it was a recreational trail. The standard was a lower one: that the City not show \u201cdisregard\u201d for the plaintiff\u2019s after-dark usage of a paved trail.<\/p>\n

Perell J. held that pedestrians in the circumstances of the plaintiff do not need to be warned of obvious conditions, such as darkness during the night.[11]<\/a>\u00a0Additionally, the City did not show disregard for inherent risks by keeping the trail open to the public at night, even if that meant debris might be present and unseen. \u201cNormal risks\u201d of the plaintiff\u2019s activity included encountering debris or locking wheels. As the accident was caused by those elements deemed foreseeable to the plaintiff before entry, he willingly assumed those risks.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Take Away<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

So long as regular inspections are performed for the type of hazard in issue, weekly frequency (in particular) is sufficient for a s. 4(1) environment. There is no breach of standards when the conditions those standards create are reasonably known before entry into an area.\u00a0 In this case, the foreseeability of the risk encountered was assumed by the plaintiff, who could not then recover despite potentially significant damages.<\/p>\n

Liability Waivers and Obvious Risks:\u00a0 Hosseinkhani v. QK Fitness Inc.,\u00a0<\/u><\/em><\/strong>(2019 ONCA 718)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The plaintiff sustained a burst vertebrae fracture after slipping on a round dumbbell during a fitness class that she had taken bi-weekly for 8 months.[13]<\/a>\u00a0At the instruction of the fitness instructor, the plaintiff set her dumbbells beside her low-stepping exercise block. When the plaintiff was instructed to step off the side of the block, she stepped on the dumbbell, which had rolled away from where she had placed it. She did not anticipate that in her evidence. She had also signed a standard waiver of liability as a condition of her gym membership.<\/p>\n

Analysis: Exclusion of Liability Clause<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

The Court threw out the exclusion of liability clause. Such a clause was contemplated for use by s. 5(3) of the\u00a0OLA<\/em>. This section permits restriction on occupier\u2019s duty of care when \u201cthe occupier shall take reasonable steps to bring such restriction, modification or exclusion to the attention of the person.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

Examples of valid clauses all included bold, colour headings.[15]<\/a>\u00a0Successful examples stated \u201cPlease Read Carefully!\u201d[16]<\/a>, \u201cThe Conditions Will Affect your Legal Rights Including the Right to Sue\u201d,[17]<\/a>\u00a0or \u201cIndividual Waiver of Public Liability- Warning.\u201d[18]<\/a>\u00a0In this case, none of those types of headings were present. There was no evidence from the employee who witnessed the waiver and so no basis for the attention requirement of s. 5(3) to apply.[19]<\/a>\u00a0Without specific attention given the waiver, it was found useless.<\/p>\n

Analysis: s. 3(1) Obvious Risks<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

There was no issue that s. 3(1) applied, as the plaintiff was an invitee of the defendant.\u00a0[20]<\/a>\u00a0The question was whether there was negligence in not warning about the use of round dumbbells or the lack of instruction to lay the dumbbells specifically on their ends.<\/p>\n

The defence advanced the position that there was no warning required for \u201cobvious risks\u201d. Risks were obvious if they could be figured out without \u201cunreasonable risk of harm.\u201d\u00a0[21]<\/a>\u00a0The ability to forget about a risk does not create a duty to warn.\u00a0[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Court accepted that there was no evidence that the round dumbbells were inherently dangerous. They had been used thousands of times without incident and several times by the plaintiff herself.[23]<\/a>\u00a0\u201cAn occupier does not have to warn an adult about obvious risks.\u201d\u00a0[24]<\/a>\u00a0That round things rolled did not need to be spelled out for the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Take Away<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal, in 2020, affirmed this decision.[25]<\/a>\u00a0As such, the standard for exculpatory language will be a high one, though advice is conveyed in the judgement. While that did not carry the day, the Court still applied a generous definition of what was \u201cobvious.\u201d Absent a past history of risk, and outside of a sport requiring considerable skill, patent risks of injury are not compensable.<\/p>\n

The \u201cFair Play Doctrine\u201d in High Risk Sports:\u00a0 Casterton v. MacIsaac<\/u><\/em><\/strong>, (2020 ONSC 190)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The plaintiff brought an action for an in-game collision with the defendant, a player on an opposing hockey team. The plaintiff was knocked off his feet, hit his head and lost consciousness. He claimed he was blindsided. The defendant claimed it was an accident. There was conflicting evidence, but it was accepted that the defendant was moving and the plaintiff was not.<\/p>\n

The standard of liability was reviewed and its evolution traced by Justice Gomery at trial. A distinct movement was noted to a lower standard for plaintiffs since 1965, when they needed to prove definitive resolve to cause serious injury.<\/p>\n

Analysis: The Fair Play Rule<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

The Court relied on the rules of the game. Once the characterization of the hit was matched with the definition of a \u201cblindside\u201d (based on the plaintiff\u2019s expectations and the movement of the players), the Court accepted that the rule of the game determined such actions \u201care absolutely prohibited.\u201d[26]<\/a>\u00a0By virtue of the defendant having injured the plaintiff with an illegal move, there was liability on the defendant. Nothing else was necessary to prove liability and the Court accepted the hit was neither intentional nor reckless.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n

Take Away<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

The standard for liability in a physical sport has evolved over the last 30 years. This case confirms the trajectory to lowering the standard for successful negligence in contact sports to any violation of \u201cfair play\u201d leading to injury. Personaly injury in sport will likely continue to be a source of liability cases for injuries created around acts that, while foreseeable or unintentional, lie outside of the rules of the game.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0Onley v. Town of Whitby<\/em>, 2020 ONSC 20 [Onley<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>\u00a0Karpouzis v. Toronto (City)<\/em>, 2020 ONSC 143 [Karpouzis<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>\u00a0Onley<\/em>,\u00a0supra<\/em>\u00a0note 1 at para 62.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a>\u00a0Rankin (Rankin\u2019s Garage & Sales) v. J.J.<\/em>, 2018 SCC 19.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>\u00a0Onley<\/em>,\u00a0supra<\/em>\u00a0note 1 at para 83.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0see para 110.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>\u00a0Karpouzis<\/em>,\u00a0supra<\/em>\u00a0note 2 at para 35.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 67.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 85.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a>\u00a0Karpouzis<\/em>,\u00a0supra<\/em>\u00a0note 2 at para 90.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 85.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a>\u00a0Hosseinkhani v. QK Fitness Inc.<\/em>, 2019 ONSC 70 at para 8 [Hosseinkhani<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a>\u00a0Hosseinkhani<\/em>,\u00a0supra\u00a0<\/em>note 12 at para 64<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0<\/em>at paras 69, 70, 73.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a>\u00a0Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited<\/em>,\u00a02018 ONCA 313<\/a><\/p>\n

[17]<\/a>\u00a0Arif v. Li<\/em>\u00a02016 ONSC 4579<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a>\u00a0Trimmelitti v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited<\/em>\u00a02015 ONSC 2301<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 80.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0<\/em>at para 85.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 90.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0<\/em>at para 93.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0<\/em>at para 97.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 99.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a>\u00a02019 ONCA 718.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a>\u00a0Casteron v. MacIsaac<\/em>, 2020 ONSC 190 at para 114.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a>\u00a0Kempf v. Nguyen<\/em>,\u00a02015 ONCA 114<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Ibid<\/em>\u00a0at para 106<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the\u00a0Occupiers\u2019 Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (\u201cOLA\u201d) import duties on occupiers to take some care to see that patrons are safe while on the premises.\u00a0 The duty is not absolute.\u00a0 In the case where s. 3(1) applies, the risk must be foreseeable by the \u201creasonable\u201d system in place.[1]\u00a0 Under … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1174,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publications"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMoving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the\u00a0Occupiers\u2019 Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (\u201cOLA\u201d) import duties on occupiers to take some care to see that patrons are safe while on the premises.\u00a0 The duty is not absolute.\u00a0 In the case where s. 3(1) applies, the risk must be foreseeable by the \u201creasonable\u201d system in place.[1]\u00a0 Under … Continued\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Stieber Berlach\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-20T18:03:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-07-22T01:14:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"sblegal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"sblegal\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/\",\"name\":\"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-20T18:03:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-07-22T01:14:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/d27104cfe1ac89514d69cf478e20d51d\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/\",\"name\":\"Stieber Berlach\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/d27104cfe1ac89514d69cf478e20d51d\",\"name\":\"sblegal\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/68113d703093710dbe0dda74958d1a73991a69f284ef2440e33efe318e66bfdd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/68113d703093710dbe0dda74958d1a73991a69f284ef2440e33efe318e66bfdd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"sblegal\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/author\/sblegal\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach","og_description":"Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the\u00a0Occupiers\u2019 Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (\u201cOLA\u201d) import duties on occupiers to take some care to see that patrons are safe while on the premises.\u00a0 The duty is not absolute.\u00a0 In the case where s. 3(1) applies, the risk must be foreseeable by the \u201creasonable\u201d system in place.[1]\u00a0 Under … Continued","og_url":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/","og_site_name":"Stieber Berlach","article_published_time":"2020-10-20T18:03:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-07-22T01:14:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":650,"url":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"sblegal","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"sblegal","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/","url":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/","name":"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability - Stieber Berlach","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-10-20T18:03:38+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-22T01:14:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/d27104cfe1ac89514d69cf478e20d51d"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/moving-the-goal-posts-2020-developments-in-sports-and-recreation-liability\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moving the Goal Posts: 2020 Developments in Sports and Recreation Liability"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/","name":"Stieber Berlach","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/d27104cfe1ac89514d69cf478e20d51d","name":"sblegal","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/68113d703093710dbe0dda74958d1a73991a69f284ef2440e33efe318e66bfdd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/68113d703093710dbe0dda74958d1a73991a69f284ef2440e33efe318e66bfdd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"sblegal"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress"],"url":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/author\/sblegal\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=516"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1175,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516\/revisions\/1175"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sblegal.ca\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}