Occupier’s Liability S.4(4)(f): Recreational Trail

In Turner v. Kitchener (City) [2011] O.J. No. 4803, the plaintiff was riding his bike along a recreational trail in Kitchener. It was his regular route and time of travel which put him on the trail at 5:15 am.

Earlier that day vandals had set fire to a bridge along the trail and after investigating, the police and fire personnel had blocked off the bridge with a wooden barricade and yellow caution tape.

The plaintiff was biking at a relatively high speed for the time of morning, was wearing a helmet but did not have any light affixed to his bike. As the plaintiff approached the barricade, he was not able to see it, and when he did notice it is was too late to stop safely. The plaintiff applied his brakes so hard that he flipped over the bike and suffered injuries.

In this case, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with “reckless disregard” towards him.

The trail is a “recreational trail”, so that s.4(4)(f) of the Occupier’s Liability Act (“Act”) was triggered. Section 4(3)(c) of the Act is also triggered and the plaintiff is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks when he rode his bike on the trail that day.

The deputy trial judge cited Cormack v. Mara (Township) (1989), 68 O.R. (2d) 716 (C.A.) which defined “reckless disregard” as doing or omitting to do something which the occupier “should recognize as likely to cause damage or injury to [the person] present on his or her premises, not caring whether such damage or injury results”.

After the fire, police and fire personnel attended the scene the city dispatched a crew to erect an orange barrier with several lines of yellow caution tape blocking off bridge access. The bridge was blocked off in order to arrange an inspection to determine if the bridge was structurally safe.

The plaintiff’s expert report concluded that the city ought to have used either a reflective warning sign and/or a flashing beacon.

The city offered evidence that the recreational trails are closed between 11pm and 6am. There are signs posted which state this and there is a by-law which specifically prohibits presence in the park, including on the trails between those hours.

The deputy judge accepted the city’s evidence, although it only showed that the plaintiff was in violation of a city by-law. He held that the city did not act with “reckless disregard” for the plaintiff. The deputy judge further explained that,“it could not be deemed likely, from the city’s perspective, that a bicyclist riding a trail while it was closed, and more importantly, while it was almost completely dark, without a headlight, would fail to see the barricade until it was too late to stop safely. Nor do I find that the city did not care whether injury resulted from its erection of the barricade.”

The deputy judge also stated that a flashing light on the barricade would have increased the possibility of the plaintiff seeing the barrier, but that a light on his bike and riding at a slower speed in the dark would have done the same thing.

If the deputy judge had found for the plaintiff on liability, he would have reduced the damages by a factor of 70%.

Also see Kennedy v. London (City) (2009), 58 M.P.L.R. (4th) 244 (Ont S.C.J.) and Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (2009), 97 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A.) on the issue of recreational trails.

- Alison McBurney

Summary Judgment Rule

(Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196

While we wait for the Ontario Court of Appeal to clarify the scope of the new summary judgment rule, the Honourable Justice Power has recently shown a preference for the interpretation of the new Rule 20 that expands the power of the court in making findings of fact.

Various Superior Court of Justice judges have interpreted the changes to Rule 2o differently, some suggesting that it does not give a motions judge the power to make findings of fact for the purpose of deciding an action on the basis of evidence while others (now including Power, J.) suggest that it does allow a motions judge to make findings of fact.

The ultimate resolution of these diverging points of view by the Ontario Court of Appeal will have a significant impact on insurance defence litigation. Often defendants are faced with having to decide whether to go through an expensive trial or just make a "smaller payment" to settle a claim, even where a defendant is fairly sure that there should not be a finding of liability. Given the extraordinary cost of trials, defendants often unfortunately decide to settle even where they should not if they can settle for a small sum and avoid the cost and risk of trial.

The recent decision of Power, J. in (Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196, granted summary judgment to homeowners who were being sued under the Occupier's Liability Act for injuries sustained by a postal worker who had slipped and fallen on ice and snow while delivering mail to their home. The evidence of the homeowners at their examination for discovery was that they had a routine whereby they shoveled snow and salted icy areas when needed. Power, J. found that no further evidence could be put before a trial judge and therefore it was not necessary to proceed to trial. Power, J. then dismissed the action in its entirety.

Defence lawyers and insurers may yet find the new summary judgment rule to be a helpful tool in addressing claims without merit.

Occupier's Liability Act - Definition of Recreational Trail

Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (2009), 97 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A.)

Schneider was injured while skiing in a conservation area when she left a marked trail and her ski struck a wall hidden by snow. During the winter months, the area was used for activities such as skiing, tobogganing and hiking, but the defendant did not perform any maintenance of the area. Section 3 of the Occupier’s Liability Act imposes a duty on occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure that people are reasonably safe while on the premises. Where a person willingly assumes the risks of entering premises, section 4(1) of the Act substitutes a lesser duty on the occupier to not create a danger with deliberate intent to do harm and to not act with reckless disregard. Section 4(3) of the Act is a deeming provision that provides that a person who enters certain types of premises that are outlined in section 4(4) is deemed to have willingly assumed the associated risks. Those premises outlined in section 4(4) include such property as rural premises and recreational trails.

The trial judge held that the lesser duty of care did not apply because the premises did not come within one of the categories listed in section 4(4). He noted that although the premises contained recreational trails, the concrete wall was not on one of the trails.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. The court reviewed the purpose and history of the Occupier’s Liability Act. The purpose of section 4 was to encourage land owners to make their lands available to the public for recreational use. The Court of Appeal sensibly stated that it would make little sense to impose a lesser standard when users remained on the trail, but to impose a higher standard when they veered off of it. The trail was being used by Ms. Schneider for recreation and it met the definition of recreational trail, thus bringing it within the provisions of section 4.