Quote:
Originally Posted by greyduck
Again I believe it's a legal issue on public land. Try to find a way to make it private or leased then the legislation won't apply. Could be a Rec Lease, SLU zone or other disposition surrounding the lakes/ponds, and removing the public status. The end effects will be restricted areas to ice fishing which will generate a backlash, but ACA could protect the quality lakes.
|
This is the ruling from govt website.
" Duty to safeguard opening in ice
263. (1) Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.
Marginal note:Excavation on land
(2) Every one who leaves an excavation on land that he owns or of which he has charge or supervision is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the excavation exists.
Marginal note:Offences
(3) Every one who fails to perform a duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of
(a) manslaughter, if the death of any person results therefrom;
(b) an offence under section 269, if bodily harm to any person results therefrom; or
(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 242; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 18.
Not having a legal background I don't really know ( haven't searched yet) of a case that sets a precedent. I'm wondering who brought this to the ACA's attention regarding the
liability ( friggin' hate that word) issue?
What I'm reading clearly states that if adequate measures ( signage, snow fence, barricade for eg.) is in place there shouldn't be any liability issues.
Is there something deeper we are not aware of, going on here?
Can anyone shed some more light on this matter?
Stan