Bill 100 needs to die on the floor of Queen's Park, says writer

Dear Editor:

There seems to be a theme with provincial legislation lately and it has to do with trails. Recently, we found out about Bill 118 and now there is Bill 100, which has been voted on once and is moving forward through government procedure. Both of these Bills remove and/or undermine private property rights.

Bill 100 leads private property owners into thinking they can allow things, such as snowmobile trails, ATV trails, hiking trails, etc., across their property and yet retain the right to shut those trails down, if they want to or need to. They will not be able to, if Bill 100 is passed. 

What are the main points of this legislation? Bill 100, short-titled Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act, 2015, includes three sections and six schedules. Schedule 1 is the Ontario Trails Act, 2015, and has 16 sections. 

This Act is by the tourism minister and the Bill states the purposes of this Act are: to encourage the use of trails, to enhance trail experience, to protect trails, and to recognize trails.

Nothing in this Act is for the protection of private property owners, and would seem to mislead the private property owners into entering into agreements where an easement would be registered against the title of the private property. This easement cannot be removed by the private property owner; it can be removed only by an "eligible body," which under this Act is a "nominee." 

A "nominee" seems a very unusual term, and the reasoning for this term could seem quite the trick. When an "eligible body" approaches a private property owner about allowing a trail to cross his land, if the owner agrees, then he is the one actually asking this "eligible body" to put an easement against the owner's title. Unknowingly, the private property owner has just turned over his rights to the eligible body, and because of this Act, that eligible body can now go and register an easement against the title of the property.
 
"Eligible bodies" include, [excerpt right from the Act]: The Crown in right of Canada or Ontario, including an agency, board or commission of the Crown that can hold an interest in land; an aboriginal band (within the meaning of the Indian Act of Canada), community or organization prescribed under this Act; a municipality;  a conservation authority; a board under the Education Act; an incorporated registered charity under the Canada Corporations Act; a trustee of a charitable foundation and/or a donnee registered under the Income Tax Act; a qualified organization, under section 170 (h) Internal Revenue Code (United States) [(3) Future interests in tangible personal property… For purposes of the preceding sentence, a fixture which is intended to be severed from the real property shall be treated as tangible personal property.], etc.,; any other person or body prescribed under this Act.

Also, if, as a private property owner, you did allow an easement, that easement can be transferred from the eligible body you have entered into an agreement with, to any of the other "eligible bodies" on that list, and you wouldn't even know. So, in good faith, you enter into an agreement with the local snowmobile club and the next thing you know, a municipality or conservation authority has an easement against your property. Is that what a private property owner wanted? No, but that's what this Bill can do.  

This Bill could also be a detriment to those who have had a really good working relationship with private property owners, because if a private property owner feels he is going to have an easement registered against his property that he hasn't any control over, or can't remove, why would anyone allow any association, federation, or organization the privilege of putting a trail across his property? I know I wouldn't, so this Bill does just the complete opposite of what its purpose is, to promote trails.