Bill 100 and the O.L.A. may have closed our trails for good!!!

[SlowTouringGuy]

What is needed is an assurance from the government that nobody can force any landowner into an easment. They need to provide a letter in this regard to be used to help advise landowners and show them that any easement would have to be initiated by them, not by a user group. The landowners need to have government document and clearly state that by allowing a trail on your property, you are not agreeing to an easment on the title.

 

 

And who better than an organization like the OFSC to broker that deal - work with the government and with the OLA to create a document that satisfies the government's intent and the OLA concerns and can be distributed to landowners by the OLA.   It is the OLA that the landowners are listening to.   And the OFSC is in the best position to be the intermediary between the government and the OLA. 

 

Individuals talking to landowners is going to be not much more than sharing a cup of coffee and catching up on what's going on.  Sure we have relationships with these people.  We're neighbours.   The landowner is listening to the OLA.  If they weren't listening to the OLA then their wouldn't have been trail closures already.  The OLA has to tell them there are no concerns.  The government has to satisfy the OLA for that to happen.   The OFSC has a enviable opportunity to make this a win/win/win.  

[Nutter]

What is needed is an assurance from the government that nobody can force any landowner into an easment. They need to provide a letter in this regard to be used to help advise landowners and show them that any easement would have to be initiated by them, not by a user group. The landowners need to have government document and clearly state that by allowing a trail on your property, you are not agreeing to an easment on the title.

 

 

And who better than an organization like the OFSC to broker that deal - work with the government and with the OLA to create a document that satisfies the government's intent and the OLA concerns and can be distributed to landowners by the OLA.   It is the OLA that the landowners are listening to.   And the OFSC is in the best position to be the intermediary between the government and the OLA. 

 

Individuals talking to landowners is going to be not much more than sharing a cup of coffee and catching up on what's going on.  Sure we have relationships with these people.  We're neighbours.   The landowner is listening to the OLA.  If they weren't listening to the OLA then their wouldn't have been trail closures already.  The OLA has to tell them there are no concerns.  The government has to satisfy the OLA for that to happen.   The OFSC has a enviable opportunity to make this a win/win/win.  

 

 

 

This is exactly whats been happening, the ofsc is working with all parties involved and the solution will and many cases already has been conveyed by the clubs to the land owners they deal with. A few areas have already cured the problem and put land owners at ease.

 

This is a bit more complex then most think, were talking about having a bill re-written and satisfactory assurances given to 1000's of land owners across the province. Our club has some land owners that are not even in the country and have had to deal with family members or caretakers, between stuff like that and working with the gov this isn't an over night fix. 

[Nutter]

I cannot believe an Organization as large as the OFSC does not have a full time person as a Government Liaison to deal with lobbying MPPS and Government officials on behalf of

the OFSC. We need to realize the impact legislation and decisions of government affect organized snowmobiling. Every interest has a lobbying effort ongoing why doesn't the OFSC?

 

 

The OFSC does and they are and have been working on it, it's been the #1 priority since the issue arose. As said in my post above, there is no over night fix for this. 

[slomo]

Your ability to cut and paste and usual hard on for Craig Nicholson is noted ... thanks for your input 

 

Example of a province wide 30 second radio advert which would cost nothing if run as a Public Service Announcement.

 

"The following is a message to Ontario landowners from the Ontario Federation of

Snowmobiling Clubs....

While driving paved roads in Ontario, you may occasionally pass over a six to eight foot

wide patch of rough pavement at which is located a snowmobile crossing sign. This crossing

is part of the 20,000 kilometer Ontario snowmobiling trail system. This trail system is

among the best in the world and brings in about 1 billion dollars each year to Ontario's

economy.

Our snowmobile trail system is currently experiencing a rough patch of its own. Bill 100,

currently being proposed in the Ontario legislature, has Ontario land owners concerned

needlessly about threats as to how they use their own land.  

Our Ontario snowmobiling trail system depends on the generous allowance of snowmobile

passage over private property. Land owners are closing access to their properties as they

feel that the new legislation creates a situation where their property that is opened to trails

could be taken from them.

The OFSC knows that this is not the truth. As does your local Member of Provincial

Parliament.

A neighbour from your local snowmobiling club has been supplied with information about how

Bill 100 applies to you and your continued permission for snowmobiles to cross your

property. If you are in any doubt about Bill 100, please contact your local snowmobiling

club.

Your MPP should be told that you want Bill 100 explained in clear language. Phone this 1-

800 number to make your opinion known to your local MPP.

Thank you.. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs is a volunteer led not for profit

association that provides the voice for organized snowmobiling in the Province of Ontario."

 

-----------------------------

With most folks' attention to the interactive map this year, as opposed to other parts of the web site,  thought it might be a good idea to refresh memories with the aims and mission of the OFSC.

As for Mr. Nicholson, I believe you know him far better than I do....a 'friends with benefits' type relationship......

 

[manotickmike]

Slomo for provincial premiere.

[SlowTouringGuy]

Slomo for provincial premiere.

Thanks Slomo. Good draft. And great idea to run it as a PSA.

[SlowTouringGuy]

This is exactly whats been happening, the ofsc is working with all parties involved and the solution will and many cases already has been conveyed by the clubs to the land owners they deal with. A few areas have already cured the problem and put land owners at ease.

 

This is a bit more complex then most think, were talking about having a bill re-written and satisfactory assurances given to 1000's of land owners across the province. Our club has some land owners that are not even in the country and have had to deal with family members or caretakers, between stuff like that and working with the gov this isn't an over night fix.

Thank you. This is a refreshing bit of news.

[sledjunk]

Slomo for provincial premiere.

To hell with that!  We need him as OFSC President!!!!

[SlowTouringGuy]

To hell with that!  We need him as OFSC President!!!!

Somebody running with fresh ideas and not a member of the old boy's club??

Seconded.

All in favour ?

[Muldar]

Example of a province wide 30 second radio advert which would cost nothing if run as a Public Service Announcement.
 
"The following is a message to Ontario landowners from the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobiling Clubs....
While driving paved roads in Ontario, you may occasionally pass over a six to eight foot
wide patch of rough pavement at which is located a snowmobile crossing sign. This crossing
is part of the 20,000 kilometer Ontario snowmobiling trail system. This trail system is
among the best in the world and brings in about 1 billion dollars each year to Ontario's
economy.
Our snowmobile trail system is currently experiencing a rough patch of its own. Bill 100,
currently being proposed in the Ontario legislature, has Ontario land owners concerned
needlessly about threats as to how they use their own land.  
Our Ontario snowmobiling trail system depends on the generous allowance of snowmobile
passage over private property. Land owners are closing access to their properties as they
feel that the new legislation creates a situation where their property that is opened to trails
could be taken from them.
The OFSC knows that this is not the truth. As does your local Member of Provincial
Parliament.
A neighbour from your local snowmobiling club has been supplied with information about how
Bill 100 applies to you and your continued permission for snowmobiles to cross your
property. If you are in any doubt about Bill 100, please contact your local snowmobiling
club.
Your MPP should be told that you want Bill 100 explained in clear language. Phone this 1-
800 number to make your opinion known to your local MPP.
Thank you.. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs is a volunteer led not for profit
association that provides the voice for organized snowmobiling in the Province of Ontario."
 
-----------------------------
With most folks' attention to the interactive map this year, as opposed to other parts of the web site,  thought it might be a good idea to refresh memories with the aims and mission of the OFSC.
As for Mr. Nicholson, I believe you know him far better than I do....a 'friends with benefits' type relationship......

Got my vote!

[signfan]

Here is the contentious Easement section of the bill:

 

  (3)  An owner of land may grant an easement, with or without covenants, to one or more eligible bodies,

                    a)  for the preservation, enhancement or management of the use of, or access to, all or a portion of the land for purposes relating to trails or to activities relating to trails;

                    b  for the creation, maintenance or management of trails for public use; or

                    c)  for the purposes as may be prescribed by the regulations made under this Act.

 

A few questions to consider:

 

Clause A  allows for  an easement to be granted, with covenants for the preservation, enhancement or management of the use or access to the land. Does an easement that contains a cancellation clause meet the test of preserving and enhancing access. How can it? So is the entire easement invalid or would a court rule that just the cancellation clause is invalid.

 

Clause B allows for the creation, maintenance or management of trails for public use. Does a covenant that restricts access to snowmobilers only meet the test of "public use"? Could this covenant not be construed as being discriminatory to say walkers and hikers. If it is discriminatory, then is the entire easement invalid or just the covenant. And if it is just the covenant that is invalid, then a landowner can not restrict who uses the easement.

 

Based on Clauses A & B, who knows what you might get under Clause C and the as yet unwritten Regulations.

 

So is it possible that any type of restrictive covenant (time of year, user groups, cancellation clauses etc) might not meet the preserving, and enhancing test defined in the act. And if they don't meet the test, is the easement invalid or just the covenant(s). And if its just the covenant(s) that are invalid does your landowner end up with an unrestricted easement on their land which they have no control over.

 

Final question. Does our current LUP constitute an unregistered easement. Does it not provide the landowners consent in writing for us to access the property in question.? Could that written consent now be used as the basis for registering an easement on title? If the lawyers can claim damages from a club by arguing that the trail was not safe enough for his drunk client to navigate resulting in a fatality, they can certainly argue the LUP is an easement. Sure, they might not be successful in court with the argument, but how much time and money has been lost defending the case.

 

So there is what our landowners are dealing with. And do you really think joe-volunteer from Club X showing up at the door with an internal memo (OFSC Policy Statement on Land Use) from an organization that has a vested interest in having permanent access to the property is going to sway the landowner. Good luck with that.

How is the liability associated with the trail dealt with if the OFSC has an easement? Does the creation of an easement on my land decrease my liability exposure as a landowner as I essentially am re-linquishing any control I had over the OFSC's use of the land? I realize this is a little off topic, but I have a specific situation where this could be handy.

As a landowner with OFSC trail on our farm we have little concern about this new bill and the OFSC trail will remain open next year under the current OFSC land use agreement with no easements.

[SlowTouringGuy]

As a landowner with OFSC trail on our farm we have little concern about this new bill and the OFSC trail will remain open next year under the current OFSC land use agreement with no easements.

 

 

THANK YOU !

[Blake G]

X2

[Big Pete]

How is the liability associated with the trail dealt with if the OFSC has an easement? Does the creation of an easement on my land decrease my liability exposure as a landowner as I essentially am re-linquishing any control I had over the OFSC's use of the land? I realize this is a little off topic, but I have a specific situation where this could be handy.

As a landowner with OFSC trail on our farm we have little concern about this new bill and the OFSC trail will remain open next year under the current OFSC land use agreement with no easements.

Signfan, first let me say thank you for your decision to continue with the trail on your property. Personally I share your your belief that the new bill poses no threat to your overall property rights. Also be assure that the OFSC policy is that we will not be requesting easements from our landowners if/when this bill passed.

 

As to your liability question, I am not a lawyer but have some experience with our landowner agreement and our General Liability policy. Generally speaking, under our agreement, as well as an easement, you remain the owner of the property. You still have  access to the property for your use and enjoyment. The difference between our agreement vs an easement is that under an easement you can not do anything to restrict the use of the property by the party holding the easement. Example would be placing gates at the entrances and blocking access or placing a building or equipment on the designated easement. If you were to block access under an easement, the holder of the agreement could go to court and force you to remedy the situation.  Under our agreement, because there is a cancellation clause, you can do pretty much do anything you want up to and including blocking access.

 

As to liability, you are the owner of the land and ultimately could be held liable for anything that happens on your land. I don't believe an easement would relieve you of that risk. So what you need to do is ensure that whom ever holds the easement carries sufficient insurance coverage to protect you. Our landowner agreement commits us to carrying such insurance. When I visit my landowners every fall, I provide them with an insurance certificate confirming coverage for the upcoming season. I know our club also has a few cases where the landowner (a municipality in this case) has asked that they be specifically named as an insured party on the policy. Our insurer provides this upon request.

 

Now our insurance covers the use of the land for the purposes specified in our agreement (use as a snowmobile trail by snowmobilers) as well as volunteers that may be working on the trail in the off season. If you allow other users (example would be atv's in the summer) to use the trail our policy is not going to cover that. You would need to make sure the other users have enough insurance to cover you.

 

If you have a particular situation I would strongly urge you to contact your club representative to discuss and your legal council to assess your situation.

[Nutter]

Somebody running with fresh ideas and not a member of the old boy's club??

Seconded.

All in favour ?

 

 

Out of the 16 volunteers that make up the OFSC board of Gov's only 2 have served more then one term (4) years, out of the 4 volunteers that make up the OFSC Exec only  2 have served more then one term (4 years).  Where is this "Old Boys Club" ? 

 

Anyone here on this board is free to run for any position within the OFSC.  Dist govs get voted in by the volunteers within the district of where the club they volunteer with is, and the volunteer exec get voted in by the members of the current board of Gov's, exec positions are open for anyone to run for no matter the length of their volunteer experiences.

 

What actually qualifies someone for this "old boys club",  is it the countless hours, days, months years of volunteering that all at those tables have put in because others didn't get voted in by their fellow club mates, or is it where others haven't stepped up to take these positions within their districts and these people did ?

 

 

 

I for one will applaud the job our volunteer BOG and Exec have done with this challenging season, and to all past Govs and exec for past seasons. Being a volunteer officer of a volunteer corporation such as the OFSC is no easy task. Same goes for all OFSC, Dist and club volunteers. 

 

 

http://www.ofsc.on.ca/org/leadership/board-of-governors

 

 

 

Happy Easter to all OC'ers, and Happy Easter to the OFSC BOG and EXEC that will be spending most of it dealing with bill 100 locally with their local clubs and prepping for the up coming BOG meeting, and to all volunteers who will also be out volunteering this weekend. 

[Black Dog]

Mineral rights in Canada are a provincial matter, and the provinces regard themselves as the owners of all the gold (and copper and iron and oil and whatever else) in the ground. It doesn't matter if you have legal title to the land. Surface rights and mineral rights are separate things, and just because you own one doesn't mean you own the other.

 

 

So we just have to secure mineral rights under all the trails and we are good to go!

[catinental couch]

What we really need is to simplify the situation.Determine who is pushing for Bill 100 and have the government totally withdraw the Bill and do a mass advertising through a large media explaining that the Bill is withdrawn and that they are sorry for interfearing in property owner's business.(Ya,like that would happen)Or it could be left to backwoods REDNECK RULE and I think anyone north of #7 knows what that would entail.

[Big Pete]

Maybe we should all pray to the snow gods that Premiere Wynne prorogues the provincial legislature. That way Bill 100 would die on the floor and would have to be reintroduced (with a new minister and some amendments) in the new session.

[02Sled]

Maybe we should all pray to the snow gods that Premiere Wynne prorogues the provincial legislature. That way Bill 100 would die on the floor and would have to be reintroduced (with a new minister and some amendments) in the new session.

Do you think we could be that lucky

[Techdenis007]

Out of the 16 volunteers that make up the OFSC board of Gov's only 2 have served more then one term (4) years, out of the 4 volunteers that make up the OFSC Exec only  2 have served more then one term (4 years).  Where is this "Old Boys Club" ? 

 

 

Highway 11 Corridor, aka Northern Corridor, Hearst in particular.  Top Secret, no-one says anything to anyone about any problems.  No news.  No grooming updates.  No help wanted either. BTDT.

[SlowTouringGuy]

Highway 11 Corridor, aka Northern Corridor, Hearst in particular.  Top Secret, no-one says anything to anyone about any problems.  No news.  No grooming updates.  No help wanted either. BTDT.

And other Districts, too. And the entire election process. But let's not argue. Hope everyone had a happy Easter.

[Faceman]

I believe bill 100 finished second debate yesterday. Some very good/positive comments from all parties. General consensus from the supporting opposition members was wording clarification will go a long way to a remedy. I have spoken with different members of Parliament and one thing that was very clear, the OFSC staff, in particular Mike Clewer was very visible and supportive at Queens Park.

Sadly I've reviewed pretty much all of the recent debate ( apparently no life) and noted several speakers stood out,NDP MPP John Vanthof Timiskaming Shores, NDP Paul Miller Hamilton, PC MPP Bill Walker Grey Bruce and PC MPP Norm Miller Muskoka Parry Sound These 4 in particular stood out in their honest educated views

General consensus is Bill 100 will pass 2nd reading and go to committee for review/consultation and input.

[slomo]

I believe bill 100 finished second debate yesterday. Some very good/positive comments from all parties. General consensus from the supporting opposition members was wording clarification will go a long way to a remedy. I have spoken with different members of Parliament and one thing that was very clear, the OFSC staff, in particular Mike Clewer was very visible and supportive at Queens Park.

Sadly I've reviewed pretty much all of the recent debate ( apparently no life) and noted several speakers stood out,NDP MPP John Vanthof Timiskaming Shores, NDP Paul Miller Hamilton, PC MPP Bill Walker Grey Bruce and PC MPP Norm Miller Muskoka Parry Sound These 4 in particular stood out in their honest educated views

General consensus is Bill 100 will pass 2nd reading and go to committee for review/consultation and input.

Thanks for the update - had been keeping an eye on the OFSC website, but no new information there.

[Blake G]

Here's the MPP from Temiscaming-Cochrane. Twenty minutes.

 

He rambles on a bit, but makes his points.

 

[Faceman]

Easier to read the transcript and in a quarter of the time. He comes across very credible.