Ontario Trails News - we welcome clarifying statements from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on the Ontario Trails Act - we call for a stoppage to trail closures

Ontario Federation of Agriculture comments on Bill 100
OFA Commentary: February 19, 2016
Easements are voluntary in Supporting Ontario Trails Act

By Paul Wettlaufer, Director, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

There’s a lot of talk in the countryside about Bill 100, the proposedSupporting Ontario Trails Act. The act was introduced in the Ontario legislature in May, 2015 and has generated much confusion over whether or not a landowner has a choice to grant an easement. Trail-related easements are entirely voluntary under Bill 100.

Ontario farmers have a long history of providing, upon request, access to their land for public use. The proposed act includes rules for easements for landowners wishing to share their land on a seasonal or year-long basis. That being said, Bill 100 does not force farmers and rural property owners to enter into any trail-related easement agreements.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) carefully reviewed Bill 100 and provided comments in June 2015. In our submission, OFA noted section 12 of the legislation is clear that an owner’s decision to enter into a trail easement is their own choice and is completely voluntary. The legislation clearly states a landowner may grant an easement to allow use of their property and have the right to state the length or term of the agreement. That means Ontario farmers and rural property owners will retain a choice and should not feel obligated to enter into any easement agreement for recreational trail use.

OFA does have concerns with the Supporting Ontario Trails Act, including insufficient fines for trespassing and vague best practices for trail operators. To read OFA’s full submission and comments on Bill 100, visitofa.on.ca

Ontario’s farmers have a unique perspective on trails. Former railways crossed through farms, hiking trails run through or adjacent to farmland and many farmers voluntarily permit seasonal use of their land for snowmobile trails. There’s a lot to consider when farmers permit recreational trails on their property. Land easements under Bill 100 and the proposed Supporting Ontario Trails Act are voluntary and should be carefully considered before being granted. If in doubt, consult legal counsel if you any questions about allowing access to your property for recreational purposes.

Ontarians are fortunate to have such a rich and beautiful countryside. It is worth working together to share our appreciation of our natural landscape.

-30-

For more information, contact:
Paul Wettlaufer
Director
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
519-369-7528

Neil Currie
General Manager
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
519-821-8883

Ontario Trails News - misinformation spread by some groups and media killing trails economy in rural Ontario

MPP Randy Hillier, founder of Ontario Landowner's Association responds to OLA claims in the Lanark Era

By Gena Gibson
Era staff
Randy  Hillier  doesn’t  mince  words  as  he  dismantles  the Ontario  Landowners’  Association’s  argument  about  the proposed  trails  bill  making  its way through the Ontario government’s approval process.

The  Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Member of Provincial  Parliament  says  the landowners’  group  has  misled the  public  on  the  benefits  and drawbacks of Bill 100, which, in part, would regulate easements on private property.

“It’s  their  inability  to  understand  the  English  language  or their inability to understand legal terminology,” Hillier said in an interview last week. “I’ve often seen it with the present-day (landowners’ association).”

He  stressed  that  Bill  100, which  has  made  it  through first  reading  and  has  yet  to  be debated,  is  a  positive  bill  for property owners and land users, such as  snowmobile  clubs.  “It creates a new legal mechanism that  provides  greater  certainty to  trail  associations  and  to  private landowners over the use of land,” Hillier explained.

In the past, he noted, property owners and groups have agreed on property  use  by  handshake or  informal  agreement.  Far from  eroding  property  owners’
rights,  Hillier  added,  the  bill would  give  them  more  control by  allowing  them  to  set  limits on easements.

A letter in the Feb. 2 Lanark Era  by  Elizabeth  Marshall, the  director  of  research  for  the Ontario  Landowners’ Association, said the proposed legislation  would  not allow  property owners  to  retain  the  right  to shut down trails if they want or need to.

“This easement  cannot  be removed by the private property owner; it can only be removed by an ‘eligible body,’” she wrote. Hillier  said  the  statements from  Marshall  are  wrong  and misleading.“They’re suggesting that easements can be imposed on private landowners, and nothing could be  further  from  the  truth,”  he said. “It’s not based on fact.”

He said nothing in the legislation imposes easements on anyone, while it does allow property owners to set limits on use of the trail over their property“(In  the  current  legislation), easements  were  exhaustive...with  no  ability  to  restrict  the time of year,” he explained. He used the example of a farm field, which a farmer agrees to allow a snowmobile club to use in the winter, but not during the cropping months.

“So this  is  a  big  win  for  everyone,” he said. “It now allows us  to  put  greater  covenants  or greater restrictions to the easements.” He  said  snowmobile  clubs,  such  as  the  local  Snow  Road Snowmobile  Club,  will  also have  greater  certainty  of  trail use under the proposed regulations.

“A handshake  agreement doesn’t  give  much  certainty  of use,” he said.Hillier  pointed  out  that  if  an easement agreement is reached for  a  five-year  term,  that  will be registered on the land’s title, even if it is sold. The new property owner would see the agreement clearly spelled out, as opposed to an informal handshake
agreement that  may  not  have been mentioned and comes as a surprise when winter approaches and snowmobilers arrive.

“So all in all, I think it is a reasonable and practical and beneficial way to increase recreational use  and  protection,”  Hillier said, noting with a laugh that he doesn’t always – or often – agree with legislation put forward by the Liberal government. “Whenever  there’s  misinformation or dishonest information put  forward,  it  does,  rightfully so, cause anxiety,” he stressed, pointing to the need for further investigation  and  independent verification.

He  admitted  that  he  hadn’t read  the  bill’s  content  at  first reading, waiting until closer to the debate.“When I saw these outlandish claims, I said, I’ll take a look and read this legislation,” he noted.He said the landowners’ association has made false claims in the past, using the Crown patents as an example. The association encouraged property owners to apply  for  their  Crown  patents in an effort to protect their land, but Hillier said that has led some people  to  believe  they  didn’t have to follow the law.

“When you  break  the  law, you break the law,” he stressed. “There’s  many  laws  that  I  disagree with, that I think are foolish,  unnecessary  and  intrusive,
but they remain the law.”

https://goo.gl/55X8fX

---

---

Ontario Trails Council asks media  - please stop the incorrect coverage 

Media continues to allow for fear of act - just this week the following commentary appeared: 

https://goo.gl/1YITa8

“Something that bothers me as a rural property owner is forced easement. If I have an agreement with my neighbour or snowmobile club that is exactly what it is, an agreement,” said Karen Mahon, a West Perth landowner. “An easement on the other hand is registered and runs with the land. You cannot get out of it. That is mentioned in Bill 100 and is easement law.”

Not forced. To continue to publish this is just wrong.

"But according to Elizabeth Marshall, the director of research for the Ontario Landowners Association, Bill 100 would lead private property owners into thinking they can allow trails across their property while retaining the right to shut those trails down. Shutting trails down that have been registered as easements under Bill 100 would not be as easy as it is through direct agreements, Marshall claimed."

There is no leading, this is a position the landowner can pursue of their own volition.

We request that media outlets stop publishing comments that are opinion and that are scaring landowners. The OTC has done interviews with these publishers clarifying our position, the Act and our go forward strategy, as well as getting our Press Release to them.

Know your easement and we are working with landowners to make sure the types of agreements are better understood and enacted by them.

Ontario Trails News - Minister Coteau corrects media and misstatements on Bill 100.

Ontario Trails Council contacts Media, distributes content to members and third parties
 

At Ontario Trails Council we've done more than write the press release this week. We've been on hte phone with trail groups, landowners, the media and government officials. we've worked to clarify the issue, we were contacted on the weekend before the story broke big and we think we helped reduce the loss of trail through our effort. Please support this by:

• Contact your MP and ask them to support Bill 100
• Contact your Regional Trails Committee and ask them to support Bill 100
• Send the OTC Press Release to area trail and landowners to clarify the issue
• Most importantly - understand what the landowners concerns are and listen to them. If we respond as good neighbours they will understand trail folks are good folks
• Talk to other trail users and tell them - don't trespass, respect private property - that saves trails!

---

Bruce Trail Media on the Issue.
Subject Line: Misinformation and Bill 100

Upon reviewing the recent article in the Owen Sound Sun-Times regarding the proposed Supporting Ontario's Trails Act, 2015 (Bill 100) we want to correct the misinformation it presents regarding easements and Bill 100’s impact on the rights of landowners.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy has the proud distinction of working with 960 landowners who generously allow the Bruce Trail to cross their private land. Many of these "handshake" agreements have been in place for close to 50 years, and the landowners have always had – and continue to have – the right to allow or withdraw access at any time. These handshake agreements are not the same as an easement.

Easements are a more permanent, legal arrangement whereby landowners are compensated for a permanent right to cross their land. Easements can only be established if the landowner agrees. The Bruce Trail Conservancy only enters into agreements, whether for access via a handshake agreement or via an easement, with willing landowners.

It is important to stress that none of the handshake agreements with our 960 landowners are in any way impacted by the proposed legislation in Bill 100.  Bill 100 does not make those handshake agreements permanent (i.e. it does not turn the permission into an easement), nor does it take away any rights of the landowners to decide what happens on their own land.  The landowner can still ask for the Trail to be removed and we honour our commitment to do so at their request.  If the landowner wants to enter into an easement agreement, a legal arrangement is established and the landowner is compensated for that (by cash or a tax receipt).

This recent note from Michael Coteau, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, confirms that entering into easement agreements is at the discretion of the landowner:

The province introduced Bill 100, the Supporting Ontario's Trails Act, 2015, to improve access to Ontario's trails, building both a healthier, and more prosperous Ontario. Our ministry held consultations with over 250 organizations, including municipalities, Aboriginal groups, trail organizations and not-for-profit organizations. The feedback the ministry heard during these consultations was integral to shaping the proposed legislation.

To be clear, an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agreed to do so.

-    Michael Coteau, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport

We thank and applaud the Landowners along the Niagara Escarpment that so generously allow the Bruce Trail to cross their land. Of their own volition, they - like so many landowners throughout the province - provide an invaluable service to those seeking to enjoy the outdoors.

Sincerely, Beth Gilhespy Executive Director The Bruce Trail Conservancy

---

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport points fault

Faults Ontario Landowners Association for misinformation

MANITOULIN—Since last week’s front page story ‘landowners’ group feels snowmobile trail rights-of-way could compromise land use,’ the Manitoulin Snowdusters Snowmobile Club is pleased to report that their phones have not been ringing off the hook with cancellations of agreement, adding that the intent of Bill 100 has been largely misconstrued by the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA).
Last week, Green Bay farmer Bruce Wood told The Expositor that he received notification from the OLA on Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, where the OLA had stated that clubs, such as snowmobile clubs or hiking groups, could gain legal access to a person’s property it had previously had agreements to use if the bill should pass. This worried him so much he gave the Snowdusters warning that his Honora Bay property would be closed to the club beginning this week. The club relies on Mr. Wood’s property for a good extent of its trail system in the area.
Immediately following the article, The Expositor received a message from Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Michael Coteau, who put forward the bill, which reads: “The province introduced Bill 100, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, to improve access to Ontario’s trails, building both a healthier, and more prosperous Ontario.
“To be clear, an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agreed to do so.
“It’s unfortunate that the PC Party hasn’t taken the time to read the proposed legislation and is out of touch with over 250 stakeholders from the trails community including municipalities, aboriginal groups, trail organizations and not-for-profit organizations who were consulted by our Ministry. Input from these organizations was integral to shaping the proposed legislation,” Minister Coteau states.
Randy Hillier, currently the Progressive Conservative MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox-Addington, was previously involved in land use issues, founding the Lanark Landowners Association, the precursor to the OLA. Mr. Hillier also weighed in on last week’s story, commenting on this newspaper’s website, stating: “For the record Bill 100 does not impose any statutory or regulatory infringement/impairment on private property rights, neither does it grant acquired rights to access or use, over or on private property. However, Bill 100 does amend and expand how mutually agreeable land use agreements can be registered on title via easements. Registering agreements on title can provide greater certainty and protection of tenure and use to both the property owner and the user who are signatory to the agreement. Important to understand this law is applicable only to mutually agreeable contracts entered into by people.”
“The minister has done a good job of accurately summing up what Bill 100 is really about,” said Snowdusters spokesperson Brad Middleton when contacted following a Wednesday evening meeting which had Bill 100 at the top of its agenda.
“We are confident we are not going to have a mass exodus (of landowners),” Mr. Middleton said. “We will be dealing with this on a case-by-case basis if any landowners decides to pull their property from our trail system.”
As the snowmobile season is nearing its end, Mr. Middleton said he believed most landowners with doubts would likely see it through to the end, including Mr. Wood who was persuaded by the club to have his property remain as part of the system until the season’s end.
The Snowdusters plan to use the summer months to educate the landowners on Bill 100 with the help of Algoma-Manitoulin MPP Michael Mantha.

“I hope this just blows over,” Mr. Middleton added.

Mr. Wood told The Expositor that he has agreed to let the Snowdusters continue to use his property for the season, but “I’m thinking they should pay for a lawyer of my choosing to draft up an agreement for me that’s agreeable to them.” The farmer noted that he doesn’t receive a free trail permit for his kindness.
While his attitudes may have changed slightly over Bill 100 since the article and his accompanying letter appeared in this paper, “it still makes sense to put it out there that this could happen.” Mr. Wood said he worries that this Bill is just a government ploy to have conservationists get a permanent claim on land which may have endangered species or species at risk on it.
“If they can’t get it one way they’ll come around and do it another way,” he added.

Ontario Trails News - Better Farmer and The Flesherton help correct damage caused by erroneous reporting on the Trails Act

Ontario Trails Council gets media coverage on issue in The Flesherton

Ontario Trails

Trail groups, including the Ontario Trails Council, are concerned that some property rights associations are spreading mis-information about Bill 100, The Ontario Trails Act, which is now before the legislature.

The main source of confusion concerns property easements, which some groups are representing as mandatory. This is not true. “To be clear, Bill 100 only affects landowners who want to negotiate an easement for trail access. It in no way makes trails on private or public land nor does it take negotiation rights away from landowners, Patrick Connor, Executive Director of the Ontario Trails Council (OTC) says.

As a charitable organization working to promote the management, use, development and preservation of recreational trails, the OTC is concerned that the facts regarding Bill 100, trails and landowners, are being misunderstood by some groups, Connor says. He says the bill actually “makes the process [of negotiating easements with landowners] clearer.”

And, Michael Coteau, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the ministry that drafted the Bill, has also issued a statement to clarify any mis-interpretations. “To be clear, an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agreed to do so.”

The Ontario Trails Act was introduced in May, 2015, by Coteau. If passed by the legislature, the Act will result in changes to other Acts of Legislation to reduce liability exposure for land owners, increase fines for trespass, as well as introduce other changes that will make it easier for groups to hold events, while providing better guidance on issues of risk exposure and liability.

---

Ontario Trails Council gets media coverage in Better Farmer

Provincial Trails Act sparks concern in the countryside

© AgMedia Inc.

February 15, 2016

‘We think the trails and the Trails Act have become a lightning rod for a lot of other concerns’ says Trails Council head

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Farm owners hosting recreational trails on their properties shouldn’t fear that the province is trying to steal their land by using a law that is currently being considered in Queen’s Park, says the executive director of the Ontario Trails Council.

Desboro (Deseronto) -based  Patrick Connor says some landowners have recently broken agreements with local trails groups and closed recreational trails through their properties in the Gananoque area because of negative publicity about the Ontario Trails Act, also known as Bill 100. “We are upset because the landowners are upset,” says Connor. On Saturday he sent a release to news media asking them to stop. “We respectfully request that your organization not publish any media that further causes damage to trails or landowner relations. We appreciate the land that landowners provide to trails, and this appreciation is being lost.”

Connor says erroneous charges have been made in the media. “The articles that went out claimed that the Act is going to do certain things that the Act is simply not going to do,” Connor said in an interview. Earlier in the week the federation of all-terrain vehicle clubs lost seven sections of their trails. Some trails arranged for by snowmobile clubs have also been shut down.

“There is a real agitation going on here and rightly so,” Connor says. “If the trail is another way that the government is going to take my land, through this Act, I’m taking my land back before they do so. But the Act doesn’t say that.”

“We think the trails and the Trails Act have become a lightning rod for a lot of other concerns.” Connor mentioned “tensions in rural areas . . . Including wind farms” which are highly unpopular in some parts of rural Ontario.

Connor says trails have been established in Ontario over 40 or 50 years and this legislation was developed from the grass roots up and with consultation from organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, as many as 250 community groups and a number of provincial ministries. Connor says the bill actually strengthens the position of land owners where trails are concerned because it allows for much higher fines for trespass and for property damage. There’s little that’s new in the Act, other than “soft” topics such as a provincial trails week every year and a trail classification system. Mostly the law just puts a lot of pieces about trails “into one file.”

Following a single interview news item quoting a “concerned citizen” decrying the Trails Act, aired on Wingham-based Blackburn Radio early last week, Connor says he spoke at length with the station’s news director and believes that turned down the rhetoric in western Ontario. Completion of the G2G (Guelph to Goderich) trail on a disused rail right of way remains particularly controversial.

Paul Shaughnessy, executive director of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, says a letter to the editor published in the weekly newspaper Ontario Farmer and other Postmedia newspapers across the province criticizing the Trails Act is simply incorrect. Elizabeth Marshall, director of research for the Ontario Landowners Association wrote that landowners who let snowmobile trails on their property may be handing their land over to the local conservation authority.

“Landowners do not need to fear snowmobile clubs” because they don’t operate under easements, Shaughnessy says. Snowmobile trails operate under partnerships between local clubs and landowners, a “time-tested” arrangement.

Tom Black, president of the Ontario Landowners Association, which has chapters across rural Ontario and in Toronto, stands by the researcher’s work and words and says the snowmobile federation “is being used.” But he stopped short of asserting that landowners shouldn’t let recreationalists on their property. ”We are not telling people to close their trails. We tell them the information; they can do what they want with it.” But he hopes that weather keeps the snowmobile trails in his area closed “until this gets straightened out.” The 22-page Trails Act passed first reading in the Legislature last May and is now before committee.

Black interchanges the terms “easement” and “right of way” and asserts “it says right there in the Act” under Section 12, once a trail is registered it can belong to any of a dozen groups, including conservation authorities, aboriginal groups, school boards,  and charitable organizations such as the Ontario SPCA.

Black counts about 180 groups associated with the Ontario Trails Council, but says no one there represents land owners, where the trails are, and there’s no one on the council representing farm groups.

“I don’t see a problem here,” says Peter Jeffery, senior researcher, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which made a submission to the province regarding Bill 100. “When you read that whole section on easements ...  subsection 3 says property owners may enter into easements. ... You  have two choices, yes or no. No is a valid answer. You can’t be forced into this.”

Michael Couteau, minister of tourism, culture and sport also weighed in on the issue in a statement issued Feb. 10. “An easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agreed to do so.”

The farm federation had asked the province to stiffen the trespass to property laws but didn’t really get what it wanted. Bill 100 allows for higher maximum penalties, up to $10,000 for trespassing on private property, but Jeffery says it doesn’t help much as most fines levied for trespass are minimal. A $50 or $100 fine for trespassing is meaningless to someone driving an $8,000 ATV in a farm field, Jeffery points out. There needs to be a minimum fine applied. BF

Read Bill 100 supporting the Ontario Trails Act

Read the comments - Patrick Connor added - 

THANK YOU

On behalf of the Executive and Board of the Ontario Trails Council I would like to express our thanks to Better Farming for publishing our comments. Just a couple of things, the OTC President and Secretary are ranchers, and our VP is a farmer. And I'm from Deseronto (although Desboro is nice too) Regards, Patrick Connor