Q. Now, my friend indicated that you were basically to do what Mr. Romanuik had instructed on Monday. Did you consider Andy Brand’s demonstrations part of his instructions to you?
A. I certainly considered Any Brand’s demonstrations to be a part of what we’re doing. Why would they be demonstrated and not be acceptable.
¶ 151 Breault testified as follows at trial (p. 1673, ll. 1-24):
Q. Did Mr. Romanuik tell you you could do certain exercises or not do certain exercises on Monday?
A. No.
Q. Did he give you any discussions about equipment, either this piece of equipment should be put here or shouldn’t be put here or shouldn’t be combined, anything along those lines?
A. No. It was – to me anyway it was understood that where they were placed at the time we started demonstrations was the way that it was to be basically.
Q. And did Mr. Romanuik, before you did any of these exercises that you talked about – well, firstly did you feel that these exercises were part of your course?
A. I had no reason to dispute it. I assumed it was part of the curriculum if it was being taught.
Q. Okay. And did Mr. Romanuik, before you did any kind of somersaults or anything, go over and say now, look, Andy’s doing these somersaults, I want to explain the mechanics of it and how they should be done?
A. No, I don’t remember any mechanics of the actual manoeuvres.
¶ 152 The Defendants argued that Denise gave no evidence that she did the manoeuvre because she thought it was part of the class but rather she did it because she did not think she would get hurt. I do not accept this argument. The only inference I can draw from Denise’s testimony is that she assumed that a partial back salto off the box horse was a permitted activity. At p. 3741, ll. 4-13, she testified:
A. It is just something I had done before previously, like, into the pool, and it was just another opportunity. I had this big crash mat that was, you know, extra padding for my landing and I’m — I don’t know, I just never really even thought about it, I just thought oh, I’m going to do a back flip here, never thought I would have an injury or that I’d be in trouble or anything. I just thought here’s something I know how to do because I have done it before, and I did it.
and at p. 3742, ll. 18-25, she said:
Q. Did you ask Darcy [Romanuik] if you could do a back flip?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, I didn’t even think, like, I thought why, why would I? It was, like, nothing crossed my mind that I was going to be injured or that I needed his permission even to do it, it was just something that I was going to do.
¶ 153 It is obvious that the Plaintiff had the same understanding as did virtually all the other student witnesses who gave evidence (Danny, p. 1116, ll. 16-20). The Plaintiff testified at p. 1336, l. 27 to p. 1337, l. 14):
Q. At that time, did Mr. Romanuik come over to you, to the girls at that station and give them any advice whatsoever as to the exercises you were doing off that springboard and box horses?
A. At any time?
Q. Yes?
A. At any point. No.
Q. Did he give you any warnings at all of any sort about those exercises and that equipment on the Tuesday either?
A. No.
Q. Did he set any restrictions either saying you can do this or you couldn’t do that on the Monday or the Tuesday?
A. No.
¶ 154 A teacher’s role is to place restrictions or limits on students to ensure that they are not exposed to an unreasonable risk in the performance of activities of an inherently dangerous nature or activities that they have not been properly trained to do. It is clear from the evidence of Denise, the Plaintiff and several of the other students that whatever restrictions Romanuik may have placed on the students they were insufficient. Further these instructions were not properly understood by the students to mean that partial back saltos off a box horse onto a crash mat were not permitted. I accept the testimony of Lance as to Romanuik’s pedagogical approach to gymnastics (p. 1466, l. 21 to p. 1467, l. 13):
Q. Now, what I want to know about those, whatever you did, prior to your doing them did Mr. Romanuik give you specific instructions on technique, how you were to do them and tell you about the progressions and things like this or not?
A. No. We just learnt from our observations of what Andy was doing over it.
Q. That would be it?
A. So it was just observational learning from the demonstration.
Q. How about on other classes then? Let’s say basketball and things like this, did he have you do progressions of some sort there?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did you do there?
A. He’d start us off with dribbling the basketball and then he’d take us into shooting and then plays and then we’d scrimmage.
Q. But in gymnastics?
A. He didn’t do any of that.
¶ 155 In his testimony at trial, Claude spoke to Romanuik’s approach to gymnastics as follows (p. 1583, l. 18 to p. 1584, l. 22):
Q. Okay. So you say that he often – he always showed us what we were going to do that day. Now, back in volleyball or basketball, would you put it in that context? What did he tell you about that?
A. Well, for different classes – for example, like volleyball or basketball – we would, you know, learn different drills, different things to do . Obviously improve your skills. And generally we would be, you know, given handouts in some classes to show, like for instance, different techniques and how they were used. But in terms of for gymnastics we didn’t – it wasn’t generally the same because we weren’t shown the same stuff in terms of – we all knew what we were doing because we had taken gymnastics before, but it wasn’t because we had known stuff from previous experience having been taught. It was just from our own participation in it. But in terms of things like basketball and volleyball we – you know, having been in the sports you – like, for phys ed class you were taught different drills and things like that.
Q. But were you taught those drills in this gymnastics class on those two days?
A. In that sense we weren’t taught certain drills in gymnastics that day. It was basically things that were demonstrated by – for instance, demonstrated by Andy. Whereas, for instance, in the case of basketball he would sometime show us different activities or different drills, whereas in gymnastics he usually didn’t get – he wasn’t involved or didn’t do any of the demonstrating. He usually got Andy to do it.
¶ 156 Further on at p. 1585 Claude’s testimony was as follows (ll. 2-11):
… again, that just relates back to in other classes he was quite involved. Like, being a basketball coach he – if we took basketball or volleyball in phys ed we were taught certain drills and sometimes given handouts. For example, on weightlifting, things like that. But in gymnastics he really didn’t get involved in terms of demonstrating anything for us, aside from showing us where to stand for spotters, or he wouldn’t demonstrate any of the activities that we were doing in gymnastics.
¶ 157 Further on in cross-examination Claude stated the following (p. 1614, ll. 14-23):
Q. If I can just refer you to page 32 of your statement. Mr. Romanuik always showed us and explained what we were going to do that day. That’s what your statement says doesn’t it?
A. Yes. Again it was a general statement, but, for example, for that day in gymnastics we were told what we were going to do, but in terms of explaining it we didn’t, you know, get handouts or it wasn’t as straightforward as maybe if it was a basketball practice or something like that.
Q. And Mr. Romanuik involved you actively, involved himself actively in showing you and your classmates what you were going to do in your phys ed class on a particular day, didn’t he?
A. Yes, he did, except particularly for gymnastics he usually didn’t get involved. I don’t know for what reason, he would usually get Andy to demonstrate.
¶ 158 At trial, in cross-examination, the Plaintiff testified that no activities were ever expressed in terms of being “fundamental,” that is to say, students were not taught that a basic manoeuver must first be learned before they moved on to a more difficult activity (p. 1381). The Plaintiff testified that Romanuik did not expressly teach fundamentals in his gymnastic class (p. 1381, ll. 16-23). At trial in cross-examination the Plaintiff stated the following (p. 1406, ll. 2-7):
Q. And, Ms. MacCabe, you will agree with me that you weren’t instructed by Mr. Romanuik or given any permission by Mr. Romanuik to do a back flip on April 23 of 1991, were you?
A. No, but I was not instructed to do anything by Mr. Romanuik.
¶ 159 It is the duty of the teacher to ensure that his instructions are clear, direct and understood by all the students.
¶ 160 The evidence of the defence witnesses, Denise, Lisa and Romanuik himself do not contradict the Plaintiff’s witnesses’ testimony. Rather what the defence witnesses conclude is that they were unable to identify specific activities that were done by other students. They merely defer to those students who actually did the activities as a source of the relevant evidence.
¶ 161 Romanuik’s evidence is that he instructed or permitted break falls where a student pushed off upwards and backwards from a full height box horse onto a crash mat, forward rolls from a springboard over a full height box horse onto a crash mat, dive rolls from a springboard over a full height box horse onto a crash mat, hand springs from a springboard to a full height box horse landing on a crash mat, straddle vaults or scissor kicks from a springboard over a full height box horse onto a crash mat, a spread eagle and a swan dive from a springboard over a full height box horse to a crash mat. Some of these activities are not mandated by the Curriculum Guide, namely: spread eagles and swan dives.
¶ 162 Romanuik thought it necessary to have spotters standing on either side of the crash mat to ensure that the students performing the vaulting exercises did not over-jump the crash mat. The additional role of the spotter was to ensure the mat was pushed back in place if it slid out after a landing.
¶ 163 As a result, I can only conclude that Romanuik was aware that these potentially dangerous activities at the box horse exposed his students to an unreasonable risk. As a result I find that such activities were inappropriate given the students’ level of experience and training.
2. Proper Progressions (Progressively Coached and Trained to do an Activity Properly to Avoid Danger)
¶ 164 This second criteria relates to the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that his or her students are progressively trained and coached to perform the activity properly in order to avoid danger.
¶ 165 It is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that the students learn and understand the basic manoeuvres, and develop a level of proficiency before they are permitted to move on to more advanced skills. The exercise must be performed enough times that the teacher and the student are comfortable that the student can complete the basic moves sufficiently well. Therefore, the risk associated with the subsequent progression is minimized due to the student’s established degree of competence with the basic manoeuvre.
¶ 166 Mr. Rosborough, a teacher for 17 years, was called by the Defendants. He was qualified to provide opinion evidence on the instruction of physical education, in particular gymnastics, to secondary school students. He testified that a student should “master” basic exercises before they move on to the next level of more challenging exercises. He illustrated this teaching skill with the use of a chart which was displayed in the gymnasium for his students to view – exercises were colour coded for each degree of difficulty. Students move from red (easiest) to white (intermediate) to blue (most difficult), only after they are able to complete all activities within the section competently.
¶ 167 Upon undertaking a new venture which might involve a risk of danger, it was reasonable to expect that the teacher’s instruction consist of a period of instruction, then a period of direct supervision, followed by increasing levels of freedom from direct supervision depending upon the student’s level of achievement.
¶ 168 From the evidence given by all of the students, it is clear that they did not understand that they were working through these progressions. Many of them did not know what landings were nor that they had been taught proper progressions for landings in control. As an example, Breault stated the following at trial (p. 1663, l. 21 to p. 1664, l. 12):
Q. Okay. Now I’m going to ask you sort of very quickly, did Mr. Romanuik have you jump off the crash mat onto the ground, do those kind of things, or off a box onto the ground?
A. Not on the ground. It was just from the horse, the box horse to the mat.
Q. Okay. But I’m sort of going back to the ground level. Did you do anything where you fell down on your knees and then fell forward on your hands?
A. No.
Q. Stand up and fall forward on your hands?
A. No.
Q. Fall forward and kick one leg out?
A. No.
Q. Stand on a bench and jump up or jump down?
A. No.
Q. So your recollection is straight to the box horse with Mr. Brand doing these things?
A. Yeah.
¶ 169 Romanuik failed in his duty to ensure that proper progressions were performed by the class. As such, when the Plaintiff attempted to perform a partial back salto off the box horse, she could not possibly have known that she should have learned an entire series of progressions before making such an attempt.
3. Equipment Configuration
¶ 170 The equipment utilized must be adequate and suitably arranged.
¶ 171 I find that the evidence supports the following configurations in the gymnasium on the date of the Plaintiff’s injury:
(a) In the southwest corner of the gym was the springboard, full height box horse, and crash mat configuration;
(b) In the northwest corner of the gym was the mini-trampoline and tumbling mat station to which the crash mat was later added; and
(c) In the northeast corner of the gym was the high bar and tumbling mat configuration.
(i) Springboard/Full Height Box Horse/Crash Mat
¶ 172 I agree with the submission of the Plaintiff that this configuration permitted and encouraged inherently dangerous activities. I accept Dr. Russell’s testimony that a combination of a springboard, box horse and crash mat possesses some inherent dangers in that the students may spring too high or rely too much on the crash mat. It is not a configuration Dr. Russell utilized in his classes. Further, as a result of Romanuik devoting his time and attention to the high bar station, the students at the box horse station were left on their own at a station that permitted and encouraged dangerous activities which were well beyond the level of competence and experience of both Romanuik and his students.
¶ 173 The use of the full height box horse was inappropriate in the vaulting context given the inexperience of the students in the class. I am mindful of the methodology for vaulting as set out in the Resource Book at p. 240 to the effect that the spring device may be used from which to vault “as the child’s own springing ability’ develops and helps master the vaulting techniques.” Further down the same page, the Resource Book also states that the two apparatus “should only be used for vaulting with competent vaulters.”
¶ 174 I accept Willie’s testimony in cross-examination (at p. 296, l. 23 to p. 297, l. 3) that instruction was not given as to the use of the box horse:
Q. Okay. And you’ll agree with me, won’t you, that the idea of the box horse was to jump over it?
A. We were not really given anything to – to – do or not on the box horse. We were allowed to experiment I believe.
Q. So now you’re telling me you could have done anything you wanted?
A. Within reasonable limits.
¶ 175 I also accept Claude’s testimony in this regard (p. 1572, ll. 2-13):