Teen on ATV survives close call with cable

Sure hope this guy see's his day in court..he needs a good tongue lashing from a judge and possible jail time.

Quote:

---

A teenager from Arnprior, Ont., suffered painful neck injuries after driving her all terrain vehicle into a steel cable strung across a private road she's used for almost a decade.

Sixteen-year-old Taylor Yach was thrown from her ATV and knocked unconscious after running into the three-metre-long cable on Saturday near her family's cottage in Ladysmith, Que. She was taken to hospital and her family called police.

"I didn't see it until the last minute and it was blending into the trees," Yach told CBC News. "I didn't have any time to hit the brake. I didn't have any time to duck. I thought I was going to die. I could have been decapitated. Honestly, I could have."

The disturbing close call has sparked concern among ATV enthusiasts in west Quebec, where residents say the problem of young drivers trespassing on private property is growing out of control.

Yach admitted she was operating her ATV on private property at the time of the collision, but said she's used the narrow dirt road near Highway 303 since she was a small child to tap maple trees and splash through puddles.

She said she drove along the same road with her father earlier this month, and has never been warned to stay away. Nor has she ever seen a "no trespassing" sign posted on the road.

"We had been going down there for so long I didn't think anything of it," said Yach.

Yach said she had just turned a corner and was only travelling at about 15 km/h when she struck the cable. Nevertheless, the force was enough to rip two wooden posts the cable was attached to from the ground.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/teen-atv-s...090000564.html

---

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1x...755887352948a7

She is one lucky young lady !

Interesting case.

The owner has the right to do whatever he so chooses on his own property. However, if it was shown / proven that he was aware that other users were using the trail, and he failed to post No Trespassing signs, and / or failed to place some marking tape on the cable which was strung neck high.....it could in fact be seen as intentionally causing harm.

She is one lucky lady for sure but she (if you ask me) should be the one that needs to take responsibility for her actions as she was the trespasser. Don't get me wrong, maybe the owner should have put up signs or flagging tape on the cable but we can't overlook the fact that she knowingly trespassed on that property regularly....
How about if a log or some other natural obstruction was in the way and she got hurt, is it still the owners fault for not keeping that trail clear for the trespasser(s)? Should the onus be on the owner to keep his trail marked/posted in order not to be in trouble?
Anyway, glad she is alright and hopefully the owner didn't intentionally put up the cable to do harm.

The big question is, why was the cable hung there? What was the purpose?

If the honest answer is to teach an ATV driver a lesson, well this person is pretty sadistic.

I wonder if you must post potential dangers to others who may be on your property, even if they are trespassing.:silly: Maybe to prevent costly litigation.:scream: Hence the 'danger open pit', signs around big holes on private property.:rolleye: The next question is ,whether she will continue to trespass on that property ?:ashamed:

Here's a thought, stay off other people's property. Why should the burden be on the landowner instead of the trespasser if the trail/road closure was legit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Here's a thought, stay off other people's property. Why should the burden be on the landowner instead of the trespasser if the trail/road closure was legit?

---

Ya butt they have been doing it for so long even her father trespasses so it must be ok

I would think the landowner should have taken steps such as posted no trespassing signs before resorting to this sort of sadistic behaviour.

Not same thing but someone near me used to go out and mark rocks in a bay we boat in regularly. One day a marker floated away and a boater lost the foot to his motor when he hit the rock... The boater won in court as the onus was on the guy who marked the rocks to make sure they stayed marked as he'd been doing it for years. Pretty sad! Now there's no markers anywhere to be seen in that area


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My question is, are you libel if you do not post dangers, (open pit, ropes at neck height between trees, punji sticks, bear traps), on your property, and someone-anyone even trespassers hurt themselves? Anything similar to being charged for not marking an open ice fishing hole?

Yes fishermccann

The law states you owe a duty of care to anyone on your property invited on not. kids trespassed onto my property and used a hill for sledding in the winter, one broke there leg when they hit a tree while I was down south. The family sued and won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

Yes fishermccann

The law states you owe a duty of care to anyone on your property invited on not. kids trespassed onto my property and used a hill for sledding in the winter, one broke there leg when they hit a tree while I was down south. The family sued and won.

---

That just doesn't seem right, or fair.

I have used cable before to restrict access on to one of my properties. The road was being destroyed by trucks out mudding, so much so that I had to fix the road to get my own truck in. I strung the cable across at a low height and marked posts (trees) with orange paint and tied some tape to the cable. It did stop the offending trespassers and my land quieted down with deer sightings going up quite a bit. That being said I knew folks would come flying in on the trail/road so I wanted them to see the cable. I had tried signs on the side of the trail and they just sailed on by them ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

She is one lucky young lady !

---

And the owner is even luckier, because if she had died...... The intension is pretty clear to me so this guy deserve bad things, hopefully karma will take care of it!

Here's the thing.

An owner putting a cable across to limit access if perfectly fine.

If however the owner knows that people are using the trail, and that they might become injured by that cable suddenly being installed, then he has a duty of care to ensure it's visible, and that the intent is adequately posted.

Otherwise it may be construed as intent to cause harm, and could result in charges laid.

Optimally, signs posted in advance, saying "No Trespassing", coupled with a posted notice that it will be in force ( even an ad in the local paper). Then installing the cable, complete with high vis tape or paint in place, would show a duty of care, and wouldn't even receive any reprimand.

Has the teen learned her lesson? Yes, the absolute hard way. Particularly if she'd been on the property all her life.

Growing up there were lots of privately owned bush lots I rambled around on as a kid. It never occurred to me they were someone's property. As I got older, my dad made sure I knew the owners, but it was still a conversation to be had.

The troubling part for me is the height of the cable. It might be difficult for the owner to say he didn't intend to injure.

I fully agree that putting something in place to hurt someone intentionally is just wrong on all levels. But some responsibility has to be on the trespassers. I mean after awhile it gets to be enough is enough when you sign your land and people just ignore it cause they have been using the land for yrs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooseman

I fully agree that putting something in place to hurt someone intentionally is just wrong on all levels. But some responsibility has to be on the trespassers. I mean after awhile it gets to be enough is enough when you sign your land and people just ignore it cause they have been using the land for yrs.

---

Not sure if that's the case here though.

Seems to me that every news carrier hasn't mentioned the property being posted.

Does it say anywhere for a fact that the landowner was the one the put the cable up? I read the article in the link and they don't say who did or who they "think" put it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Interesting case.

The owner has the right to do whatever he so chooses on his own property. However, if it was shown / proven that he was aware that other users were using the trail, and he failed to post No Trespassing signs, and / or failed to place some marking tape on the cable which was strung neck high.....it could in fact be seen as intentionally causing harm.

---

Yep! If it can be proven that there was malicious intent,the person placing the cable is liable to criminal negligence charges and civil lawsuits even though the young lady was trespassing. It doesn't seem fair,but,the property owner is solidly on the hook,too. Just the civil suit alone could cost him everything he owns. In high school,I had a classmate lose her life from exactly the same thing. It was proven that the landowner deliberately strung a thin cable across a road/trail regularly used by snowmobilers without clear markings. He went to prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It was proven that the landowner deliberately strung a thin cable across a road/trail regularly used by snowmobilers without clear markings. He went to prison.

---

Yea, thru the years I remember reading of similar trials and the landowners have usually lost. You can't try and kill people, even on your own property.

Couldn't the cable layer argue that he/she had strung tape or the like across the cable when he/she installed it but, someone has since removed it?

The investigation would have to prove the intent; ie....she said she rounded a corner and hit it..so if it was intentionally hidden from clear view, ie on a corner...they could prove his intent was to cause harm...etc etc..

i think it will all be decided on the height of the cable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hunteronwheels

i think it will all be decided on the height of the cable

---

well the photo evidence would suggest it was 'neck' high...

One thing everyone is skipping over is has anywhere it been shown that the landowner placed this cable?
There has been a rash of these things happening & not just on private property.
Let the investigation play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farsider

Couldn't the cable layer argue that he/she had strung tape or the like across the cable when he/she installed it but, someone has since removed it?

---

HAH! Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

well the photo evidence would suggest it was 'neck' high...

---

That pretty much shows "intent" slam-dunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Not sure if that's the case here though.

Seems to me that every news carrier hasn't mentioned the property being posted.

---

The question is if she knew it was private property beforehand, or not.

"Yach admitted she was operating her ATV on private property at the time of the collision, but said she's used the narrow dirt road near Highway 303 since she was a small child to tap maple trees and splash through puddles."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

The question is if she knew it was private property beforehand, or not.

"Yach admitted she was operating her ATV on private property at the time of the collision, but said she's used the narrow dirt road near Highway 303 since she was a small child to tap maple trees and splash through puddles."

---

She is the victim so I don't think it will really matter. No one should put a wire accross a trail to stop trespassing, cut a tree, make a fence and so on.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

well the photo evidence would suggest it was 'neck' high...

---

It might be waist high when stringing it, then becomes neck high when sitting on an atv. How high would you suggest would be appropriate (which I don't) while sitting or standing? 2 feet high would likely flip an atv, 5 feet high and a sitting rider could go right underneath. Anything placed across any trail should be marked enough in advance to enable a stop or turn around, not to do so, to me shows intent to cause harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

The question is if she knew it was private property beforehand, or not.

"Yach admitted she was operating her ATV on private property at the time of the collision, but said she's used the narrow dirt road near Highway 303 since she was a small child to tap maple trees and splash through puddles."

---

It doesn't matter. If someone creates a hazard likely to cause injury,they're screwed,private property or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It doesn't matter. If someone creates a hazard likely to cause injury,they're screwed,private property or not.

---

As well they should be! Whether the land owner had intent to injure or not, it is clear there was intent to put up a barrier of sorts. By not properly marking and warning of the danger on what was a well used trail, the land owner should have his arse handed to him.

Again most are assuming it was the landowner who strung the wire.
Article doesn't state this.
I have no way of know just like everyone else.
Let's not make assumptions without any facts.
Let the investigation do it's job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

The question is if she knew it was private property beforehand, or not.

---

Actually that isn't a valid question.
Private or not doesn't necessary equal trespassing.
Not sure on Que. laws but in Ontario in this situation if not posted or being given a verbal warning to leave it very well may not constitute trespassing.
Just because it's privately owned in many cases does not mean you can not enter legally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seabast

She is the victim so I don't think it will really matter. No one should put a wire accross a trail to stop trespassing, cut a tree, make a fence and so on.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It doesn't matter. If someone creates a hazard likely to cause injury,they're screwed,private property or not.

---

My intent was not to suggest otherwise. Obviously I agree that he created a very dangerous situation. I was simply stating that its unclear if she knew she was trespassing at the time of the incident.

Normally a property owner would use a piece of chain with a red and orange triangle tractor sign Attachment 33255 bolted to the middle of it not a bare cable to limit access to their property. Would be interesting to kmow how the cable was secured to the posts, was it fixed in a permanent manner or in a way it could be unhooked and lowered to allow access.

I don't know; so someone owns a piece of land and for the pleasure of being "private" and off-limits to others, they have to pay taxes (which can be a significant $$). those taxes are to pay for police by the way, which all too often does not consider trespassing worth bothering with.
so on top of paying money to the government with zero return and being harassed by trespassers, the landowner most likely ends up in court and if lucky has at least the additional expense for a good lawyer after some scumbag insures herself in the course of violating the laws. offenders and criminals always seem to get away and the victim gets it double

maybe he marked it properly and the sign got missing after the accident; in our crooked society that wouldn't be surprising.
I feel for the guy who owns the land!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

As well they should be! Whether the land owner had intent to injure or not, it is clear there was intent to put up a barrier of sorts. By not properly marking and warning of the danger on what was a well used trail, the land owner should have his arse handed to him.

---

Absolutely.
I came across a wire strung between 2 trees once in a conservation area. Someone I guess didn't want ATV's using that path by the pond. We took it down and reported it.

What if you cut down some trees across the path or put up a barrier and a tresspasser ran into it and hurt themselves, Still landowners fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farsider

What if you cut down some trees across the path or put up a barrier and a tresspasser ran into it and hurt themselves, Still landowners fault?

---

Your question is like a little game? Too many "what if's"?

Locally in ON we have had issues with wire and sled trails. It's a pretty sorry person to attempt to cause harm on Crown Land....

Most of the cable use in the Southern US that I see is near a roadway, used like a gate entrance to prevent entrance of vehicles pulling off the road.

In this case, if it was placed in a trail intending to harm, that's another issue.

Anyway, she had no business on another's property with an atv without permission. Posted or not.

Wells have to be capped
snow has to be shovelled
Pools have to be fenced.

if a kid sneaks into your back yard and falls down an open well, or drowns in an unfenced pool (duty of care). You are in a world of trouble. Dont think intent to injure has anything to do with it. Though it could make matters worse.

some things are inherently dangerous. Be that a well/pool or cable across a sled/atv trail. The landowner may claim "wasn't me" and if charges are laid. Not sure how it can be proven. However theres lots of wells (pools) out there that owners didn't put in, but still owe a duty of care.

right/wrong/fair
who knows. But kids will be kids.

With remote privately-owned property,it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the owner may have done this. I'm thinking clandestine grow-op or some other illegal activity taking place where crooks purposely laid a booby trap to discourage others from interfering. Anything is possible,but,at any rate,all riders and outdoors people need to be aware that they may run into something like this and exercise due caution. Sadly,it's a sign of the times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

if a kid sneaks into your back yard and falls down an open well, or drowns in an unfenced pool (duty of care). You are in a world of trouble. Dont think intent to injure has anything to do with it. Though it could make matters worse.

---

That's right. The landowner's duty of care is a matter of civil liability and intent doesn't enter into it. The duty of care exists regardless of whether the landowner himself strings the cable.

Intent does enter into the question of criminal charges. Either the provable intent to cause injury, which would result in some very serious charges, or recklessness as to the consequences of stringing a wire across a trail, which would be criminal negligence.

This doesn't mean it's okay to be a trespasser, either. One of the first things to disappear on these threads is the idea that both parties can be in the wrong.

There's no question there is a duty of care, however the law now lessens that duty where trespassers and persons entering for unlawful purposes are concerned. Both are deemed to have accepted any risks associated with the property. However, landowners still can't set traps or attempt to injure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

With remote privately-owned property,it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the owner may have done this. I'm thinking clandestine grow-op or some other illegal activity taking place where crooks purposely laid a booby trap to discourage others from interfering. Anything is possible,but,at any rate,all riders and outdoors people need to be aware that they may run into something like this and exercise due caution. Sadly,it's a sign of the times.

---

One of our former neighbours (at the camp) put chain across the snowmobile traile and one of our own trails on our property. We had words with him about our property and snowmobile trail association had words with him about the trail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farsider

What if you cut down some trees across the path or put up a barrier and a tresspasser ran into it and hurt themselves, Still landowners fault?

---

I wouldn't think so. The tree is very visable. A thin cable at neck level on the other hand ...

Anyhow, I can be sure of one thing ... there's going to be a court case, both the land owner and the child's family are going to be filling lawyer's pockets. I can bet that the land owner is wishing he wasn't in the middle of all this mess right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

That's right. The landowner's duty of care is a matter of civil liability and intent doesn't enter into it. The duty of care exists regardless of whether the landowner himself strings the cable.

Intent does enter into the question of criminal charges. Either the provable intent to cause injury, which would result in some very serious charges, or recklessness as to the consequences of stringing a wire across a trail, which would be criminal negligence.

This doesn't mean it's okay to be a trespasser, either. One of the first things to disappear on these threads is the idea that both parties can be in the wrong.

---

In Ontario Bill 100 reached royal assent on June 8

changes were made to several acts that, in this situation the trespassing atv operator assumed all risk by entering the property.

The maximum fine is now up to $10 000.00 for trespassing and no limit on damage claims from the land owner against the trespasser.

But this happened in Quebec, so not sure what their laws are. Not sure if I was a teenager from Ontario admitting to tresspassing in Quebec I would expect the Quebec authorities to vigorously go after a Quebec private land owner.

i think proving criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt would very difficult without the landowner incriminating himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

In Ontario Bill 100 reached royal assent on June 8

changes were made to several acts that, in this situation the trespassing atv operator assumed all risk by entering the property.

---

Yes this wasn't in Ontario but if it was how do you determine the "trespassing atv operator" was actually trespassing as defined in the Trespass legislation? The story doesn't support a trespassing situation. No signs or verbal warnings are confirmed in the posted story. Under the Trespass legislation it takes more than being on private property to constitute trespassing. A rural trail will generally require more than just being privately owned to automatically meet the definition of trespassing under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Yes this wasn't in Ontario but if it was how do you determine the "trespassing atv operator" was actually trespassing as defined in the Trespass legislation? The story doesn't support a trespassing situation. No signs or verbal warnings are confirmed in the posted story. Under the Trespass legislation it takes more than being on private property to constitute trespassing. A rural trail will generally require more than just being privately owned to automatically meet the definition of trespassing under the law.

---

It certainly does support a trespassing situation when the teen admitted she knew she was trespassing during a cbc radio interview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Yes this wasn't in Ontario but if it was how do you determine the "trespassing atv operator" was actually trespassing as defined in the Trespass legislation? The story doesn't support a trespassing situation. No signs or verbal warnings are confirmed in the posted story. Under the Trespass legislation it takes more than being on private property to constitute trespassing. A rural trail will generally require more than just being privately owned to automatically meet the definition of trespassing under the law.

---

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...etail_the_bill

Link to the new legislation above

even if you don't know you are trespassing , you are deemed to be willfully assuming all risks under the occupiers liability act.

Just because there was no sign, doesn't mean you were not trespassing, only means that before you will be charged with trespassing, you would need to be informed verbally to leave, given written notice or signs clearly posted.

One of the best parts of the new law. If it wasn't in there most snowmobile trails in Ontario were going to lose access this fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...etail_the_bill

Link to the new legislation above

even if you don't know you are trespassing , you are deemed to be willfully assuming all risks under the occupiers liability act.

Just because there was no sign, doesn't mean you were not trespassing, only means that before you will be charged with trespassing, you would need to be informed verbally to leave, given written notice or signs clearly posted.

One of the best parts of the new law. If it wasn't in there most snowmobile trails in Ontario were going to lose access this fall.

---

There's still a distinct possibility some clubs will lose access because many landowners are sick of the damage and garbage left behind for them to repair and replace at the end of every season.

Often OFSC trail wardens think they own the land. I know of a case where they argued with the actual land owner. That mentality will get you booted off forever.

Happens quite often here...my neighbour was told by the local 'Gestapo' that he needed a trail pass to use a section of the trail that passed across his own property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...etail_the_bill

Link to the new legislation above

even if you don't know you are trespassing , you are deemed to be willfully assuming all risks under the occupiers liability act.

Just because there was no sign, doesn't mean you were not trespassing, only means that before you will be charged with trespassing, you would need to be informed verbally to leave, given written notice or signs clearly posted.

One of the best parts of the new law. If it wasn't in there most snowmobile trails in Ontario were going to lose access this fall.

---

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.

Let me get this straight, if there are no signs , and/or Sec 3 (1) A or B do not apply you cannot be charged with trespassing, in Ontario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Let me get this straight, if there are no signs , and/or Sec 3 (1) A or B do not apply you cannot be charged with trespassing, in Ontario?

---

Doesn't seem right but that's how I am reading what he posted as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Let me get this straight, if there are no signs , and/or Sec 3 (1) A or B do not apply you cannot be charged with trespassing, in Ontario?

---

That's correct. A trespasser must be told to leave immediately. If they don't,then,they can be charged. In the instance of hunting,charges of Trespassing to Hunt is covered under the FWCA and apply immediately. The set fine,I believe,is $300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Often OFSC trail wardens think they own the land. I know of a case where they argued with the actual land owner. That mentality will get you booted off forever.

---

It did in the area I hunt. The owner took the land back a couple of years ago due to OFSC stupidity.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

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

---

I did and it's not there, I guess you were wrong.

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

---

I agree...in simple terms,but,and it's a big BUT, in no way shape or form does the Occupier's Liability Act amendments absolve property owners from allowing dangerous conditions to exist or deliberately creating conditions where bodily harm or death may occur to any trespasser. In that instance,the Criminal Code most certainly would apply. (Sect 219-221 Criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I agree...in simple terms,but,and it's a big BUT, in no way shape or form does the Occupier's Liability Act amendments absolve property owners from allowing dangerous conditions to exist or deliberately creating conditions where bodily harm or death may occur to any trespasser. In that instance,the Criminal Code most certainly would apply. (Sect 219-221 Criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm)

---

I agree it's not legal deliberately creating conditions for the purpose of bodily harm or death. But don't agree that the laws are intended to hold a private land owner responsible for anything and everything that happens when someone enters their property. Criminal intent would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

Criminal intent would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Wrong. Recklessness as to the consequences of an action (or of failing to act) makes up the intent element of offences such as Criminal Negligence. Stringing a cable across a trail at neck level without marking it in any way would seem to constitute recklessness. The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or wilfully blind to that likelihood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Wrong. Recklessness as to the consequences of an action (or of failing to act) makes up the intent element of offences such as Criminal Negligence. Stringing a cable across a trail at neck level without marking it in any way would seem to constitute recklessness. The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or wilfully blind to that likelihood.

---

Explain to me what "assumes all risks" means. Does it mean assume all risks until you hurt yourself and then claim criminal negligence.

When did reasonable doubt get removed from the criminal legal system ?

Maybe it had been marked and someone else removed it. You and I don't know that for fact, so we don't know if it was recklessness or not. (let's stick with known facts)

Strange, while you lads are chasing the idea of this being a criminal act, the guy in Quebec has not been charged with anything. Do you not find that odd? Perhaps he didn't commit a crime by installing a physical barrier to keep people from entering his property.

You may not like how he did it and you might not like the end result, but it might just have been legal.

"The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or willfully blind to that likelihood. "

Seriously? If this were true, he would be responsible if it had been steel gate as it would be objectively likely to cause injury if someone rode their ATV into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

Explain to me what "assumes all risks" means. Does it mean assume all risks until you hurt yourself and then claim criminal negligence.


Seriously? If this were true, he would be responsible if it had been steel gate as it would be objectively likely to cause injury if someone rode their ATV into it.

---

If that steel gate wasn't adequately marked and they piled into it in the dark,yep,the owner's a** is grass. Oh,BTW,"assumes all risks" would only apply IF someone is injured and the owner hasn't contributed to allowing a condition to exist that may cause harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

If that steel gate wasn't adequately marked and they piled into it in the dark,yep,the owner's a** is grass. Oh,BTW,"assumes all risks" would only apply IF someone is injured and the owner hasn't contributed to allowing a condition to exist that may cause harm.

---

So I guess all the farmers should run out and "mark" all their gates and fences for that matter ??? I think you are stretching it a bit !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

So I guess all the farmers should run out and "mark" all their gates and fences for that matter ??? I think you are stretching it a bit !

---

My farm friends where I have permission to hunt (Peterborough,Northumberland Counties and the RM of Clarington) all have their gates marked with reflective tape,"No Trespassing" signs and/or reflectors simply because of the high volume of ATV's and snow machines that like to rod around at night. They've been hit more than once judging from the scrapes,dents and dings. I doubt they think it's a stretch,at all. They seem to believe in Murphy's Law.

Murphy's law maybe, but an unmarked gate or fence certainly doesn't meet the tests for a crim neg offence. But I know what you mean.