Restricting access to lakes where remote (i.e., “fly-in”), resource-based tourism establishments are located poses an intriguing dilemma for wilderness canoeists. Before we get to that, let us examine who has the authority to create these restrictions, how these restrictions may be implemented, why such restrictions may be imposed, and finally, the consequences of ignoring such restrictions.
Under authority of Section 52, Subsection (1) of the Public Lands Act, “The district manager of the Ministry [of Natural Resources] in which a road is situate may, in his or her discretion and for any periods that he or she determines, close that road or part of it to travel by the public generally or by any classes of the public.”
Subsection (2) states, “A closing of a road under subsection (1) may be effected by the erection of signs or barricades.” It is interesting to note that “ditches” are not specifically mentioned.
A road may be closed for any number of reasons including:
- to provide public safety during a forest fire or during forestry operations; - to restrict vehicular traffic on a road where heavy equipment is operating, where construction is underway, where damage such as a washout has occurred to a road, culvert or bridge, or in the aftermath of a severe blowdown; - to protect fragile natural resources (i.e., vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, etc.) that may be threatened, damaged or depleted beyond a sustainable level; - to limit unauthorized access to protected places such as provincial parks or conservation reserves; - to protect a culturally-sensitive area such as a First Nation burial site; - to protect the remoteness of a resource-based tourism establishment
Subsection (5) states that, ”A person is guilty of an offence if the person, (a) without lawful authority, travels on a road that has been closed to travel by the person under subsection (1) and has had a reasonable opportunity of knowing that the road has been so closed; or (b) removes or defaces any barricade, light or notice erected on a road by lawful authority.”
Further, Subsection (6) states that, “A person who, in contravention of subsection (5), travels on a road or removes or defaces any barricade, light or notice erected on a road is liable to the Crown in right of Ontario for any damage or injury occasioned by the wrongful travel, removal or defacement.”
The law is clear! It permits an MNR district manager to "close a road or part of it to travel by the public generally or by any classes of the public.”
The suggestion that one may travel on a road beyond a closure sign to pursue other activities such as “berry picking, photography, getting to another lake, firewood cutting, etc.” doesn’t hold if the road is closed to "the public generally" beyond the point where a sign is posted or a barricade is erected. However, "any classes of the public" could be interpreted to mean those persons who ignore a sign that prohibits travel on a road in order to access a specifically-named tourism lake. In either case, the MNR will charge violators with wrongful travel by disobeying a sign or for any damage or injury caused by the wrongful removal or defacement of such a sign.
So how do road closures affect wilderness paddlers? Consider the following scenario. . .
A forest access road that leads to a tourism lake is posted as closed to travel by the public generally but this same road intersects a recognized canoe route before it reaches the tourism lake, OR, the road is closed to paddlers wishing to access the tourism lake which is an integral part of a recognized canoe route.
Effectively, the road closure prohibits paddlers from gaining access/egress to/from the canoe route. If no other means of getting to/from this canoe route exists, then there is only one legal solution.
Section 52, Subsection (4) of the same Public Lands Act states, “Despite the closure of a road, the district manager may grant a permit for travel on the road subject to the terms and conditions that he or she considers advisable."
Wilderness paddlers who wish to travel on a road that has been closed in order to use a canoe route that is accessible from that road are encouraged to employ this means to legally use the road. Perhaps, in doing so, we might cause the MNR to consider how road closures negatively affect both resident and visitor paddlers whose sole intent is to enjoy our province’s cultural and historical heritage.
Last edited by Voyageur on October 20th, 2012, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
|