Jump to content

OFSC Press Release Regarding Land Use Agreements


bbakernbay

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

You can Google it and find one that is form V2019 which most certainly has different wording concerning insurance coverage than the one that is dated 09 2016 which I think may be the "many years" one you speak of Brian.

If I recall correctly, the 09-2016 version was an update in response to the Bill 100 blow up. It introduced language clarifying the LUP was not/could not be used to obtain a legal easement. The latest version 2019-05 introduces the "specific to the normal operation of a snowmobile Club" language.I believe the 09 and 05 codes in the version number are the months the documents were published.

 

Common to all versions (including the 2019-05 version)  is the Change/Cancellation Clause which requires 60 days written notice of any change or cancellation to the agreement. So until such notice is given the existing agreements remain i full force and effect.

54 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

Does your Club renew every Landowner Agreement every year?

 

Has the standard OFSC LUP Agreement been revised for this season or is it the exact same one that has been used for many years.

The 2016 version also introduced language allowing for a start and end date. The guidance we got at the time was that if you used hard dates ( ie. Commencing Dec 1, 2016 and ending April 15, 2017) would need to obtain a new LUP the following year. As an alternative you could use Commencing December 1 of each year and ending April 15 of each year which would not require a new agreement the next year. So the short answer is that not every Land Owner agreement is renewed every year. And to the best of my knowledge there has been no directive to renew every LUP held (standard or otherwise).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read this newsletter from our counsellor, George Darouze, who was the past president of the Osgoode club and still snowmobiles (or not, he put his sled up for sale).  Anyway, the city of Ottawa are reviewing it.

 

https://www.georgedarouze.ca/volume-6-issue-2-january-24-2020

 

Snowmobile%20Trail%20Use.png

 

The city is pointing the finger at the OFSC for not contacting them early enough with the changes to the LUP.

 

I call BS on the low snow reason Osgoode hasn't opened the trails.  I've seen them open the trails with less snow than this.  Their main concern is probably the Multi-Use trail (formerly known as the KOC) that is city owned land and a former rail bed and another former rail bed that I believe is still owned by CN.  Both severely affect the rest of our trails here.  The A trail on the old CN rail bed in the Snowmobile Club of Eastern Ontario and Carleton Regional Snowmobile Club is also closed which has a severe impact as well.

 

Whichever way we look at it, half our season is already gone and 0 km to show for it.  Doing the blame game won't help anything.  Depending on what happens with this mess, I don't know if I'll be buying an Ontario trail pass next season.  All this uncertainty is killing it for me despite how much I love this sport.  Not just the legal crap but the weather too. It's mentally draining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Known issue with municipal areas in D1, and nobody said a (expletive deleted) word until the passes were sold, and volunteers had wasted a LOT of time and effort. 

My local club is pretty much rooked without the multi-use trails, other nearby clubs are going to get pretty much zero traffic with the heart of the system ripped out. , local businesses are worried.

We probably STILL wouldn't know if it hadn't finally snowed. Transparency and accountability are sorely lacking.

 

Some class action lawyer is going to get in on this. 

 

Sorry, clicked reply, and my earlier comment was in some sort of a clipboard. It still stands.

George posted days ago, nothing since. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him making a "sell my sled" statement. 

This is just the beginning. Lots of other clubs are saying how fortunate they are without these issues, but I think that's likely because they haven't a legal department to read the agreement.

OFSC should be making some sort of formal statement here, and nothing that I know about so far.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the video from Mark, owner of Quadexpert, a local dealer who's going to be among those taking the brunt of this F-up. He attended today's meeting.

Link.

Edited by manotickmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is squarely on the OFSC, they make the agreement.

good luck guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, manotickmike said:

Here's a link to the video from Mark, owner of Quadexpert, a local dealer who's going to be among those taking the brunt of this F-up. He attended today's meeting.

Link.

The statements that are made by the gentleman are wrong. And this is big part of the problem. Errors and misinformation are being put out there as fact and it is doing a lot of harm and absolutely no good. First , fact is the OFSChas not changed insurance providers. They have been dealing with the same broker and underwriters for years. Second, there has been no change to the CGL policy coverages for many years. Under the standard landowner agreement every landowner is protected by the OFSC CGL policy for any and all  activities related to snowmobiling. Keep in mind that the vast majority of club Land Use Permissions (LUP) are with private landowners. They do not generally have multiple users accessing their property year round. Virtually all the trails in this category are for exclusive use of the snowmobile club. In fact the agreement says that the club can not allow anyone else to use the trail without the written permission of the landowner.

 

 Under all the customer agreements I have seen, the landowner is trying to extend the OFSC coverage to cover them for other users regardless of season or activity. Quite frankly, that kind of coverage is either not available or the cost is unmanageable.   And on a really basic level why should snowmobilers provide insurance coverage for everybody else.   For a club to sign some of these agreements they would be exposing themselves to tremendous liability both corporately and potentially personally. So if anybody wants to step up and put their personal net worth at risk I am sure there are a number of club executives that would hand you the reins immediately. 
 

now I also understand the issues from the landowner perspective ( and I am not talking about the private landowner here). They have multiple users on their properties at a given time      . Each one represents a potential liability in the event of injury, even despite what the Trespass Act and Occupiers Liability Act say. And even if the bulk of these claims are unsuccessful, the costs to defend are enormous. So how do I as.  Land owner shift those costs to someone else?  I look to the most organized user group that happens to carry a nice big insurance policy and say if you want access you have to cover us for everything and anything.  So now it’s a negotiation to see if there is some middle ground that everybody can live with. If there are new agreements that get signed, trails will open. If a compromise can not be reached the club can not have a trail on land they have no permission to access. Therefore the trail is closed. Hopefully a reroute can be found. 
 

now let’s deal with the bs that it’s all a big conspiracy to take permit money and run. As a club/district/provincial volunteer this one hurts the most. I put hundreds of hours in every year helping make sure we have places to ride and enjoy our sport. This whole issue only started to come to light late last spring. So pardon my lazy a$$ if I didn’t spend my whole summer working with lawyers and insurance companies and corporate landowners to come to a resolution. The clubs have always been the ones that arrange land use permission. Trying to do that centrally from Barrie is nonsense. What the OFSC can do is provide guidance and recommendations to club to make sure they are not exposing themselves to significantly risk/liability. And that’s what has happened and will continue to happen. Most clubs go quite for the summer. They restart operations in the fall and there are dozens of things to do with a very limited volunteer work force. Prepping groomers, trail brushing/maintenance, signing, bridge work. If you have ever been a club volunteer you know the work.  The list is almost endless. In the fall clubs started to review their non standard land use agreements. That required sending the agreements to the broker/underwriter for review of the liability and indemnity provisions as well as other terms and conditions. If things were good, clubs received the Certificate of Insurance for the land owner. If there were issues (excessive and in some cases unlimited liability) the broker/underwriter provided recommended wording. That now goes back to the landowner (and their legal council and insurance broker) for their consideration. Of course everybody is optimistic that a compromise can be reached. I have heard that some of these agreements have gone back and forth many times. And it all takes time. Some agreements have been resolved. Some are still being negotiated. When negotiations are completed or an impasse is reached, rest assured the clubs will make the appropriate announcements. Until then, keep the rhetoric and misinformation to yourself. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares if they changed insurance providers or not, bottom line is whomever the carrier is and the OFSC required a change ( and for good reason I might add), made the change, and did a crap job communicating it and getting it out there.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Big Pete said:

The statements that are made by the gentleman are wrong. And this is big part of the problem. Errors and misinformation are being put out there as fact and it is doing a lot of harm and absolutely no good. First , fact is the OFSChas not changed insurance providers. They have been dealing with the same broker and underwriters for years. Second, there has been no change to the CGL policy coverages for many years. Under the standard landowner agreement every landowner is protected by the OFSC CGL policy for any and all  activities related to snowmobiling. Keep in mind that the vast majority of club Land Use Permissions (LUP) are with private landowners. They do not generally have multiple users accessing their property year round. Virtually all the trails in this category are for exclusive use of the snowmobile club. In fact the agreement says that the club can not allow anyone else to use the trail without the written permission of the landowner.

 

 Under all the customer agreements I have seen, the landowner is trying to extend the OFSC coverage to cover them for other users regardless of season or activity. Quite frankly, that kind of coverage is either not available or the cost is unmanageable.   And on a really basic level why should snowmobilers provide insurance coverage for everybody else.   For a club to sign some of these agreements they would be exposing themselves to tremendous liability both corporately and potentially personally. So if anybody wants to step up and put their personal net worth at risk I am sure there are a number of club executives that would hand you the reins immediately. 
 

now I also understand the issues from the landowner perspective ( and I am not talking about the private landowner here). They have multiple users on their properties at a given time      . Each one represents a potential liability in the event of injury, even despite what the Trespass Act and Occupiers Liability Act say. And even if the bulk of these claims are unsuccessful, the costs to defend are enormous. So how do I as.  Land owner shift those costs to someone else?  I look to the most organized user group that happens to carry a nice big insurance policy and say if you want access you have to cover us for everything and anything.  So now it’s a negotiation to see if there is some middle ground that everybody can live with. If there are new agreements that get signed, trails will open. If a compromise can not be reached the club can not have a trail on land they have no permission to access. Therefore the trail is closed. Hopefully a reroute can be found. 
 

now let’s deal with the bs that it’s all a big conspiracy to take permit money and run. As a club/district/provincial volunteer this one hurts the most. I put hundreds of hours in every year helping make sure we have places to ride and enjoy our sport. This whole issue only started to come to light late last spring. So pardon my lazy a$$ if I didn’t spend my whole summer working with lawyers and insurance companies and corporate landowners to come to a resolution. The clubs have always been the ones that arrange land use permission. Trying to do that centrally from Barrie is nonsense. What the OFSC can do is provide guidance and recommendations to club to make sure they are not exposing themselves to significantly risk/liability. And that’s what has happened and will continue to happen. Most clubs go quite for the summer. They restart operations in the fall and there are dozens of things to do with a very limited volunteer work force. Prepping groomers, trail brushing/maintenance, signing, bridge work. If you have ever been a club volunteer you know the work.  The list is almost endless. In the fall clubs started to review their non standard land use agreements. That required sending the agreements to the broker/underwriter for review of the liability and indemnity provisions as well as other terms and conditions. If things were good, clubs received the Certificate of Insurance for the land owner. If there were issues (excessive and in some cases unlimited liability) the broker/underwriter provided recommended wording. That now goes back to the landowner (and their legal council and insurance broker) for their consideration. Of course everybody is optimistic that a compromise can be reached. I have heard that some of these agreements have gone back and forth many times. And it all takes time. Some agreements have been resolved. Some are still being negotiated. When negotiations are completed or an impasse is reached, rest assured the clubs will make the appropriate announcements. Until then, keep the rhetoric and misinformation to yourself. 

I would expect that if the Municipalities that have multi use trails used in the winter by hikers etc., which have also been OFSC trails can't get the clubs/OFSC to cover the liability then they will end up covering on their own policy. I don't think they will shut their use down to the other taxpaying user groups who would no doubt revolt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Spiderman said:

Who cares if they changed insurance providers or not, bottom line is whomever the carrier is and the OFSC required a change ( and for good reason I might add), made the change, and did a crap job communicating it and getting it out there.

+1

And most of the facts are in this thread. There is a lot of crap out there on social media, but i think a lot of it could have been avoided with a simple statement made from the powers that be.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today’s BEAST Newsletter

Snowmobile Trails within City of Ottawa Limits
The Beautiful Eastern Association of Snowmobile Trails (BEAST), as well as other clubs with trails within the City of Ottawa, still do not have the required Certificate of Insurance (COI) needed to open the trails. Negotiation is ongoing between City of Ottawa and the OFSC insurance provider to reach an agreement, it's out of our hands at the club level. We will let you know as soon as we are informed that an agreement has been reached, on then we will be able to open trails within City of Ottawa. Please stay off closed trails, identified on the ITG as red "unavailable". Thank you for your patience.

The BEAST 311 along the Ottawa Valley Rail Trail (OVRT) and other BEAST trails in Lanark County are not affected and are beginning to open up as green "available" or yellow "limited available". Volunteers have been working hard to open as many trails possible as soon as possible. Groomers have been active. Please consult the Interactive Trail Guide (ITG) at 
https://ofsc.evtrails.com/# or the GoSnowmobiling App for available trails. Please stay off closed trails, identified on the ITG as red "unavailable". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that one other factor that worries private land owners ( including railways) is that OFSC trails and maps and word of mouth of where trails lead can cause other users ( eg Dirt bike ATVs in summer) or cross country skiers etc etc to be on the trails even without permission......thus worrying private land owners and their lawyers  (maybe even municipalities )  as to what risks they are exposed to. ....thus they start questioning OFSC insurance coverage....even though in theory it is not beholding on OFSC to insure these other users. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thereview.ca/2020/01/29/ucpr-keeps-snowmobile-trails-closed-on-public-land-action-demanded-from-provincial-federation/?fbclid=IwAR1FzRGcIPJDeX5Vkp0i3wYdy-ZA6X-lEAYRUpJmqEKpqIEgFkAea4ol2wA

 

According to the UCPR, the EOSC’s new insurance policy for snowmobile trails on private and public land, and the wording of the agreement landowners sign with the organization excludes coverage for the “willful misconduct and/or negligence on the part of the landowner,” which exposes them to liabilities.  According to UCPR Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Stéphane Parisien, the counties have received legal advice on the matter and council decided it is in its best interests to maintain insurance and landowner agreements as they have been worded in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"willful misconduct and/or negligence on the part of the landowner"

 

So these cities believe they should be able to sabotage the sled trails and the OFSC should bear the liability if they do this?  SMDH!!  I mean are they really thinking there will be some city-sanctioned action to cause willful misconduct on the trails?  What happens to people driving along the roads in Larose forest in the offseason?  Why aren't they worried about liability concerns then?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Big Pete said:

The statements that are made by the gentleman are wrong. And this is big part of the problem. Errors and misinformation are being put out there as fact and it is doing a lot of harm and absolutely no good. First , fact is the OFSChas not changed insurance providers. They have been dealing with the same broker and underwriters for years. Second, there has been no change to the CGL policy coverages for many years. Under the standard landowner agreement every landowner is protected by the OFSC CGL policy for any and all  activities related to snowmobiling. Keep in mind that the vast majority of club Land Use Permissions (LUP) are with private landowners. They do not generally have multiple users accessing their property year round. Virtually all the trails in this category are for exclusive use of the snowmobile club. In fact the agreement says that the club can not allow anyone else to use the trail without the written permission of the landowner.

 

 Under all the customer agreements I have seen, the landowner is trying to extend the OFSC coverage to cover them for other users regardless of season or activity. Quite frankly, that kind of coverage is either not available or the cost is unmanageable.   And on a really basic level why should snowmobilers provide insurance coverage for everybody else.   For a club to sign some of these agreements they would be exposing themselves to tremendous liability both corporately and potentially personally. So if anybody wants to step up and put their personal net worth at risk I am sure there are a number of club executives that would hand you the reins immediately. 
 

now I also understand the issues from the landowner perspective ( and I am not talking about the private landowner here). They have multiple users on their properties at a given time      . Each one represents a potential liability in the event of injury, even despite what the Trespass Act and Occupiers Liability Act say. And even if the bulk of these claims are unsuccessful, the costs to defend are enormous. So how do I as.  Land owner shift those costs to someone else?  I look to the most organized user group that happens to carry a nice big insurance policy and say if you want access you have to cover us for everything and anything.  So now it’s a negotiation to see if there is some middle ground that everybody can live with. If there are new agreements that get signed, trails will open. If a compromise can not be reached the club can not have a trail on land they have no permission to access. Therefore the trail is closed. Hopefully a reroute can be found. 
 

now let’s deal with the bs that it’s all a big conspiracy to take permit money and run. As a club/district/provincial volunteer this one hurts the most. I put hundreds of hours in every year helping make sure we have places to ride and enjoy our sport. This whole issue only started to come to light late last spring. So pardon my lazy a$$ if I didn’t spend my whole summer working with lawyers and insurance companies and corporate landowners to come to a resolution. The clubs have always been the ones that arrange land use permission. Trying to do that centrally from Barrie is nonsense. What the OFSC can do is provide guidance and recommendations to club to make sure they are not exposing themselves to significantly risk/liability. And that’s what has happened and will continue to happen. Most clubs go quite for the summer. They restart operations in the fall and there are dozens of things to do with a very limited volunteer work force. Prepping groomers, trail brushing/maintenance, signing, bridge work. If you have ever been a club volunteer you know the work.  The list is almost endless. In the fall clubs started to review their non standard land use agreements. That required sending the agreements to the broker/underwriter for review of the liability and indemnity provisions as well as other terms and conditions. If things were good, clubs received the Certificate of Insurance for the land owner. If there were issues (excessive and in some cases unlimited liability) the broker/underwriter provided recommended wording. That now goes back to the landowner (and their legal council and insurance broker) for their consideration. Of course everybody is optimistic that a compromise can be reached. I have heard that some of these agreements have gone back and forth many times. And it all takes time. Some agreements have been resolved. Some are still being negotiated. When negotiations are completed or an impasse is reached, rest assured the clubs will make the appropriate announcements. Until then, keep the rhetoric and misinformation to yourself. 

This post is the best post I have seen to date and is accurate.  From my vantage point looking in from the outside the only thing that OFSC changed corporately is OFSC started demanding to see the non conforming land use agreements before issuing insurance certificates.  In the past this may not have occurred which allowed clubs to mistakingly sign non-standard LUP's without proper review.    I'd challenge the effected clubs to prove that what is an issue today was not an issue in the past and was actually reviewed and signed off by head office or the insurance broker.  This is very unfortunate and I feel for the clubs that are stuck working through this, but if it hadn't occurred and an incident occurred where did that clubs executive sit with the non-conforming agreement in place and the insurer having a loop hole to jump out.  If corporately OFSC decides to add all of this additional coverage what does that do to the premiums? Is it even affordable?  Ultimately what the municipalities / large corporations risk managers are doing is not right.  As the property owners they have risks to insure themselves.  Especially in multi use trail situations.  It sucks that this is occurring, but the viability of the entire system needs to be maintained.  Hopefully OFSC is adding the needed resources to support the clubs with these legal negotiations.  It is definately an area OFSC needs to support properly and I am sure there is examples from the past where enough support was not provided. 

 

If you bought a permit there is 17,794 km of trail open today to ride.  Go riding and get your money's worth.  Riding from your backyard is not always a guarantee.  There is no case to say OFSC deliberately sold permits with no plans to open trails.  Land use closures happen every year like it or not.  It's part of what happens with a trail organization of this size.  Everyone hates that this is occurring, but there is legitimate and valid reasons for it.  Many of the closure issues are getting corrected.  Hopefully they all will in due time.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, signfan said:

From my vantage point looking in from the outside the only thing that OFSC changed corporately is OFSC started demanding to see the non conforming land use agreements before issuing insurance certificates. 

Oh so the OFSC actually did change something. Funny how they don't mention that in their "not my problem" press releases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, spaceman said:

Oh so the OFSC actually did change something. Funny how they don't mention that in their "not my problem" press releases.

That's not how I read that.

 

The OFSC started making the clubs aware that their non-standard LUP's put them (the club) at risk.  The OFSC insurance policy and coverage hasn't changed.  They have a standard worded LUP that the clubs are supposed to use.  Saying the OFSC changed something is like being mad your car insurance didn't cover your car when you're insured for casual use but use it for business use instead...

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paulslund said:

That's not how I read that.

 

The OFSC started making the clubs aware that their non-standard LUP's put them (the club) at risk.  The OFSC insurance policy and coverage hasn't changed.  They have a standard worded LUP that the clubs are supposed to use.  Saying the OFSC changed something is like being mad your car insurance didn't cover your car when you're insured for casual use but use it for business use instead...

 

Did the OFSC not change the wording in the newest LUP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This is what i believe, and pretty much mirrors what Big Pete said in his post:
    Kimberley Melbourne_ZvGTxrlsmm.png Any landowner with a land use permission on the
    standard 1 page agreement produced by OFSC will have no issues with
    insurance. Landowners are covered during the snowmobile season for any

    snowmobile trail related issues whether it is trees falling,
    snowmobilers getting hurt, trespassers on the trail getting hurt,
    grooming, volunteers doing maintenance, or anything that involves the
    trail on their land. OFSC has been around for 50 years and there has
    never been a landowner successfully sued. The OFSC looks after the
    investigation, lawyers fees, court costs, and payout of lawsuit. The
    landlord is completely covered for any snowmobile accident during the
    snowmobile season. The problem this year is from corporations that do
    not use the standard agreement and have multi page agreements with many
    legal clauses including an indemnity clause which puts all liability on
    the snowmobile club for any reason, whether it is snowmobile related or
    not. Also making it even more complicated is multi use trails and who
    covers non snowmobilers. That is the legal wrangling that is going on

    and when a group of lawyers are trying to work something out that is
    complicated, the wheels turn very slowly. Kim Melbourne President of Eastern Ontario Snowmobile Club
     
  • Mike McCreight_ZvGTxrlsmm.png So, since you seem to have a handle on this Kim, why the change this year, why last minute, and why as people who were almost certain to be affected by the change coming from OFSC were we not informed?
    Hide or report this
    • Kimberley Melbourne_ZvGTxrlsmm.png Mike McCreight great question Mike. My understanding is that the OFSCs insurance company, while reviewing the wording of the non standard agreement, noticed the indemnidy "issue". Becasue the wording may put the not for profit snowmobile club at risk for liability if the corporate landowner negligently caused harm, the OFSC insurance stopped agreeing to deal with that special non standard coverage. I am not an insurance expert. As to why? I am not privy to when this was discovered.
      I believe this was discovered late October after the court case with the railway.
Edited by Jason T
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm that Mike, in the interest of full disclosure. And the way I heard things, is the OFSC changed the wording of an agreement, something about "risk management". I have NO axe to grind here, like some, I just want the truth. Maybe living in a cesspool of political bullshit both federal and city has made me intolerant of deliberate obfuscation after all these years. I don't mind trailering, and lately, do a LOT of my riding in Quebec. I do object to hiding and covering up info from an organization I voluntarily pay to belong to. I don't give a darn which level it's from. Rant over.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, manotickmike said:

I'm that Mike, in the interest of full disclosure. And the way I heard things, is the OFSC changed the wording of an agreement, something about "risk management". I have NO axe to grind here, like some, I just want the truth. Maybe living in a cesspool of political bullshit both federal and city has made me intolerant of deliberate obfuscation after all these years. I don't mind trailering, and lately, do a LOT of my riding in Quebec. I do object to hiding and covering up info from an organization I voluntarily pay to belong to. I don't give a darn which level it's from. Rant over.

The OFSC did not change the wording. They did come back and say you (the club and potentially the directors) have been incurring huge risks and potential liability with the agreements you have been signing. If you want to protect yourselves we recommend different liability and indemnity clauses that will limit your exposure to the world of snowmobiling. (Not everybody, all the time). The option to get outside insurance to help offset the exposure was even provided. (Side Note: that insurance is very expensive and is very limited in terms of policy limits). The OFSC can not and will not put its clubs and volunteers at unnecessary risk but they do respect the clubs right to make their own decisions. The club, rightfully so, chose to negotiate more acceptable terms (from their perspective). Those negotiations are on going. And that is where we are today. 
 

I will make the same point I made elsewhere. The OFSC does not/can not negotiate land use agreements with landowners. That has always been and will continue to be the clubs domain. They can and do provide guidance  to clubs when it comes to liability and indemnity issues but at the end of the day it’s the clubs decision to sign the agreement.   I will use this example. You want to buy a house but it has all kinds on conditions attached to the title. You go to your lawyer and they explain the conditions and outline the potential problems and they give you a structure that helps alleviate some/most of the problem. You go back to the seller and they say no. It’s the original deal or no deal. that's exactly were the clubs are today. Hopefully a deal can be reached. If yes, trails can open. If not, it will be no different than if a farmer revokes permission to use their land. The trail(s) will be closed and the process of finding an alternate route will start. 
 

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big Pete said:

The OFSC did not change the wording. They did come back and say you (the club and potentially the directors) have been incurring huge risks and potential liability with the agreements you have been signing. If you want to protect yourselves we recommend different liability and indemnity clauses that will limit your exposure to the world of snowmobiling. (Not everybody, all the time). The option to get outside insurance to help offset the exposure was even provided. (Side Note: that insurance is very expensive and is very limited in terms of policy limits). The OFSC can not and will not put its clubs and volunteers at unnecessary risk but they do respect the clubs right to make their own decisions. The club, rightfully so, chose to negotiate more acceptable terms (from their perspective). Those negotiations are on going. And that is where we are today. 
 

 

It sounds like, for years clubs were exposed to this risk when signing with bigger companies and municipalities, and nobody caught on until the incident with CP. quite the "aha" moment.

I do not blame anyone, but talk about bad timing, and no information or reason given until everyone is up in arms and pissed, then it still ended up being people on social media that brought this all to the forefront. 

With no information, comes conspiracies and speculation..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is this apparently only affecting eastern Ontario?  I'm sure there are trails on other rail beds owned by CP/CN.  Enbridge also gives land use in other areas so why haven't they said anything?  Why is only EOSC affected?  Just something fishy here.

 

As far as land use by other than snowmobiles, we just had this problem with the trail just down the street from me where our local sh!t rat, while on his quad, assaulted the land owner in the fall.  He told the club he was not allowing the trail through his property anymore so now we have to ditch bang down Bank St about half a km to Meadow and cross Bank St..  I absolutely loved that part of the trail with beautiful trees and rolling hills.  Now this trail is ruined and I wouldn't be surprised if this part of the trail completely closes and I'd be hooped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mooseman said:

So why is this apparently only affecting eastern Ontario?  I'm sure there are trails on other rail beds owned by CP/CN.  Enbridge also gives land use in other areas so why haven't they said anything?  Why is only EOSC affected?  Just something fishy here.

 

As far as land use by other than snowmobiles, we just had this problem with the trail just down the street from me where our local sh!t rat, while on his quad, assaulted the land owner in the fall.  He told the club he was not allowing the trail through his property anymore so now we have to ditch bang down Bank St about half a km to Meadow and cross Bank St..  I absolutely loved that part of the trail with beautiful trees and rolling hills.  Now this trail is ruined and I wouldn't be surprised if this part of the trail completely closes and I'd be hooped.

Affected many other areas too like d5 and d9 with conversation authority’s in same boat as rail ways. Clubs closed affected trails and put detoured routes in where possible.  Sudbury been affected hard too! Been a few pockets in central ontario too as well. Kind of trickled across province. Hopefully it all gets solved soon and we can have access to all these great  areas again.

Never ends with no respect to land owners. Sucks it was an atver that ruined it for everyone! That is hard on volunteers no doubt. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strong Farmer said:

Affected many other areas too like d5 and d9 with conversation authority’s in same boat as rail ways. Clubs closed affected trails and put detoured routes in where possible.  Sudbury been affected hard too! Been a few pockets in central ontario too as well. Kind of trickled across province. Hopefully it all gets solved soon and we can have access to all these great  areas again.

Never ends with no respect to land owners. Sucks it was an atver that ruined it for everyone! That is hard on volunteers no doubt. 

I don't think the CP thing will ever get fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2020 at 11:43 PM, Strong Farmer said:

Affected many other areas too like d5 and d9 with conversation authority’s in same boat as rail ways. Clubs closed affected trails and put detoured routes in where possible.  Sudbury been affected hard too! Been a few pockets in central ontario too as well. Kind of trickled across province. Hopefully it all gets solved soon and we can have access to all these great  areas again.

Never ends with no respect to land owners. Sucks it was an atver that ruined it for everyone! That is hard on volunteers no doubt. 

So it's not just a D1 problem.  Damn.  Is the rail bed between North Bay and Sudbury affected?  Did that one last year round trip same day and with gas just along side it, it's a great trail.

 

Still nothing here about the KOC and the city of Ottawa.  Bad enough we have to contend with the weather that we also have to stand by and watch this bureaucracy BS from both sides.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...