Teen on ATV survives close call with cable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

So on your 100 acres you must plant crops, put up signs or a fence around your property, or stay there to tell people to get out, or they cannot be charged?

---

Yep. That's why proper signage and gates at points of entry are so important. It's the only thing that will save you from lawsuits if trespassers are injured on your property. It also gives Police the authority to immediately lay charges in the case of absentee landowners as opposed to ordering people off and only issuing warnings. That's one of the main reasons Police hate trespassing calls. By the time they get there,trespassers are usually either gone on arrival or they find the property unposted and can merely issue warnings. It's almost a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

So on your 100 acres you must either, plant crops, put up signs or a fence around your property, or stay there to tell people to get out, or they cannot be charged?

---

yep, the rules favour the crooks. at least one should be able to write off the fence and signs from the property taxes. really don't know what I get back from my taxes I pay for vacant land.
on a side note, deer often get hung up in new fence lines and the atv/sled crowd cuts them anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

The only changes to the Trespass to Property Act caused by Bill 100 is:
Trespass to property act 1. Subsection 2 (1) of the Trespass to Property Act is amended by striking out “not more than $2,000” at the end of the portion after clause (b) and substituting “not more than $10,000”.
2. Subsection 12 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “but no judgment shall be for an amount in excess of $1,000” at the end.
Commencement
3. This Schedule comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.

From the Trespass to Property Act:

Prohibition of entry

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

Nothing in the original posted story would support a charge of trespassing if this would have happened in Ontario.

---

i guess in your quest to be right about something you missed the part where I agreed that it would not be trespassing, but anyone entering private property assumes all risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Yep. That's why proper signage and gates at points of entry are so important. It's the only thing that will save you from lawsuits if trespassers are injured on your property. It also gives Police the authority to immediately lay charges in the case of absentee landowners as opposed to ordering people off and only issuing warnings. That's one of the main reasons Police hate trespassing calls. By the time they get there,trespassers are usually either gone on arrival or they find the property unposted and can merely issue warnings. It's almost a waste of time.

---

With Bill 100 the occupiers liability act was amended. Anyone entering private property, in simple terms assumes all risk.

It it should eliminate lawsuits from anyone entering private land and hurting themselves.

Another good part of the bill, trespassing fines went from a maximum $2000 to now being $15000 maximum and the land owner has no limit to the amount of damage restitution where previously it was capped at $1000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

With Bill 100 the occupiers liability act was amended. Anyone entering private property, in simple terms assumes all risk.

It it should eliminate lawsuits from anyone entering private land and hurting themselves.

Another good part of the bill, trespassing fines went from a maximum $2000 to now being $15000 maximum and the land owner has no limit to the amount of damage restitution where previously it was capped at $1000

---

The only part of the Ontario Occupier's Liability Act Effected by Bill 100 is:

schedule 3
occupiers’ liability act
Currently, subsection 4 (3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act specifies circumstances in which a person who enters on certain premises is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and in which a modified duty of care applies. One of those circumstances is where a person enters certain premises for the purpose of a recreational activity and the person is not being provided with living accommodation by the occupier and no fee is paid for the entry or activity of the person, other than a benefit or payment received from a government or government agency or a non-profit recreation club or association. A new subsection 4 (3.1) provides that, for greater certainty, the following do not constitute a fee for entry or activity of the person:
1. A fee charged for a purpose incidental to the entry or activity, such as for parking.
2. The receipt by a non-profit recreation club or association of a benefit or payment from or under the authority of a government or government agency.
The Schedule amends subsection 4 (4) of the Act, which specifies premises for the purposes of subsection 4 (3), to include portage routes.

None of this protects the occupier's from liability for setting or not removing known risks such as a unmarked suspended cable.

Yes trespass fines did go up but the situations where trespassers can be charged didn't change.

Most of Bill 100 actually deals with agreements between landowners & easements issued to eligible bodies (IE: snowmobile or ATV clubs) and the liabilities associated with these agreements.
This bill is to help promote these agreements, to encourage the current existence of the trails & promote the expansion of the trail systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

The only part of the Ontario Occupier's Liability Act Effected by Bill 100 is:

schedule 3
occupiers’ liability act
Currently, subsection 4 (3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act specifies circumstances in which a person who enters on certain premises is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and in which a modified duty of care applies. One of those circumstances is where a person enters certain premises for the purpose of a recreational activity and the person is not being provided with living accommodation by the occupier and no fee is paid for the entry or activity of the person, other than a benefit or payment received from a government or government agency or a non-profit recreation club or association. A new subsection 4 (3.1) provides that, for greater certainty, the following do not constitute a fee for entry or activity of the person:
1. A fee charged for a purpose incidental to the entry or activity, such as for parking.
2. The receipt by a non-profit recreation club or association of a benefit or payment from or under the authority of a government or government agency.
The Schedule amends subsection 4 (4) of the Act, which specifies premises for the purposes of subsection 4 (3), to include portage routes.

None of this protects the occupier's from liability for setting or not removing known risks such as a unmarked suspended cable.

Yes trespass fines did go up but the situations where trespassers can be charged didn't change.

---

again, I didn't say it did change the situations where tresspassing charges would apply.

since you want to quote sections and sub sections via copy and paste, please copy and paste the section that says the occupier is liable for setting or not removing known risks such as unmarked suspended cables.

when you are copying and pasting , you should also make it clear which parts were copied and which sentences or paragraphs are your own opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Most of Bill 100 actually deals with agreements between landowners & easements issued to eligible bodies (IE: snowmobile or ATV clubs) and the liabilities associated with these agreements.
This bill is to help promote these agreements, to encourage the current existence of the trails & promote the expansion of the trail systems.

---

If it mostly deals with agreements and easements, what does the rest of it deal with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

If it mostly deals with agreements and easements, what does the rest of it deal with?

---

Amendments directly referred to in the Bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

since you want to quote sections and sub sections via copy and paste, please copy and paste the section that says the occupier is liable for setting or not removing known risks such as unmarked suspended cables.

---

For this you can check the C.C.C.
You do the research.