Ontario’s trails offer countless opportunities to hike, cycle, ATV, snowmobile, horseback ride, or simply enjoy the outdoors. Whether you’re exploring a municipal trail, a conservation area, or a privately owned trail open to the public, accidents can happen.
If you’ve been injured on a recreational trail, you may wonder whether you have a legal claim. The answer is often yes, but not every injury will result in liability. Ontario law recognizes that recreational trails come with inherent risks, and the legal obligations owed by trail owners and occupiers are different from those that apply in many other settings.
Understanding how the Occupiers’ Liability Act applies can help explain when a claim may succeed and when an occupier may not be legally responsible.
Can You Sue After Being Injured on a Rural Trail?
Potentially, yes.
Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act generally requires occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure that people entering their property are reasonably safe. Section 3(1) provides that:
“An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.”
This duty applies whether the danger arises from the condition of the property or from activities taking place on it. However, that is not the end of the analysis. For many recreational trails and rural properties, the Act significantly reduces the duty owed to recreational users.
Recreational Trails Are Treated Differently
Section 4 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act recognizes that people who choose to participate in recreational activities on certain properties, such as rural trails, willingly accept many of the ordinary risks associated with those activities.
Under section 4(3), a person is generally deemed to have willingly assumed the risks of entering certain premises for recreational purposes where:
- no admission fee is charged for entry or use (other than incidental fees such as parking);
- the occupier has not provided living accommodations; and
- the property falls within one of the categories listed in section 4(4).
Importantly, section 4(4) specifically includes:
- rural agricultural land;
- vacant or undeveloped land;
- forested or wilderness property;
- recreational trails reasonably marked as such;
- unopened road allowances;
- private roads; and
- portage routes.
Where section 4 applies, the occupier no longer owes the ordinary duty to take reasonable care. Instead, the occupier must simply avoid deliberately causing harm or acting with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
That is a significantly higher threshold for an injured person to establish.
Does It Matter Whether the Trail Is Municipal or Private?
Not necessarily.
Many people assume that municipalities automatically owe a higher duty of care than private landowners. Ontario courts have repeatedly confirmed that this is not always the case.
If a municipally owned trail qualifies as a recreational trail under section 4 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the municipality may benefit from the same reduced duty of care as a private occupier. The focus is generally not on who owns the trail, but rather on whether the statutory requirements for section 4 are met.
Similarly, private landowners who allow recreational use of qualifying rural property without charging an entry fee may also benefit from the reduced standard of care.
Every case depends on its own facts, including the nature of the property, how it is used, whether fees are charged, and the circumstances surrounding the accident.
What Does "Reckless Disregard" Mean?
Ontario courts have repeatedly emphasized that reckless disregard is much more than ordinary negligence.
It generally requires conduct that shows an occupier knew, or ought to have recognized, that serious injury was likely to result and nevertheless failed to care whether injury occurred.
Simply showing that a trail could have been made safer is usually not enough.
What Have Ontario Courts Said?
Recent Ontario decisions illustrate how Courts approach recreational trail claims.
i) Trail Users Accept Many Obvious Risks
In Cotnam v. National Capital Commission, the plaintiff was injured while using a recreational trail maintained by the National Capital Commission.
The Court held that the reduced duty of care under section 4 applied because the trail qualified as a recreational trail. Although the plaintiff argued that additional signage should have been provided, the Court concluded there was no evidence that the NCC acted with reckless disregard. The trail contained warning signs, and even if additional signage may have been beneficial, that did not meet the higher legal standard required under the Act.
ii) Municipalities Are Not Automatically Liable
In Turner v. Oakville, a cyclist was injured after travelling down a steep hill on a municipal recreational trail.
The Court found that the town had taken numerous steps to promote safety, including using engineering advice during trail design, installing staggered bicycle control gates, conducting regular inspections, performing maintenance, and trimming vegetation where necessary.
Although the Town installed an additional warning sign after the accident, the Court held that this did not establish liability. The evidence demonstrated that the Town had taken reasonable safety measures and had not acted with reckless disregard.
iii) Obvious Conditions Do Not Always Require Warnings
In Karpouzis v. Toronto, the plaintiff skateboarded on an unlit recreational trail at night without a flashlight or protective equipment.
The Court concluded that darkness and limited visibility were obvious conditions that did not require additional warnings. The city regularly inspected and maintained the trail, and allowing nighttime access did not amount to reckless disregard. The plaintiff had willingly assumed the obvious risks associated with using the trail in those conditions.
iv) Natural Terrain Is Not Necessarily Dangerous in Law
In Pierce v. City of Hamilton, the plaintiff was seriously injured after leaving a marked trail and falling into a ravine within a natural park.
The Court rejected arguments that the city should have erected additional warning signs or barriers. Uneven terrain, steep slopes, and changing natural conditions were obvious features of the landscape. The Court also recognized the practical reality that municipalities cannot continuously inspect thousands of acres of natural parkland. The City’s approach to maintaining marked trails while responding to reported hazards elsewhere was found to be reasonable.
v) Rural Landowners Are Not Insurers Against Every Hazard
In Denis v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources), the plaintiff was injured in an abandoned gravel pit after striking hidden wire while operating a dirt bike.
The Court found that the property qualified as rural, vacant, and undeveloped premises under section 4 of the Act. There was no evidence that the defendants knew the wire was present or had acted with reckless disregard. As a result, the claim was dismissed.
vi) Claims Can Still Succeed in the Right Circumstances
The reduced duty under section 4 does not eliminate liability altogether.
For example, although not on a rural trail, in Singer v. Hamilton (City), the Court upheld liability where a pedestrian encountered a hidden excavation that was not an obvious recreational risk. The Court concluded that the pedestrian had not willingly assumed the risk because she had no knowledge of the concealed danger, and the occupiers failed to take reasonable steps to protect pedestrians from that hidden hazard.
The case illustrates that where a danger is concealed, unexpected, or created by the occupier, liability may still arise depending on the circumstances.
Every Trail Injury Requires a Careful Legal Analysis
No two trail accidents are identical.
Whether someone has a viable claim may depend on questions such as:
- Was the trail a recreational trail within the meaning of the Occupiers’ Liability Act?
- Was there an admission fee?
- Was the hazard natural, obvious, or hidden?
- Did the occupier know about the danger?
- Did the occupier take reasonable steps to address known risks?
- Did the injured person voluntarily assume the obvious risks associated with the activity?
These questions often require a detailed review of the facts and the applicable law.
What Should Trail Users Take Away?
An injury on a rural or recreational trail does not automatically prevent someone from bringing a claim. At the same time, Ontario law recognizes that outdoor recreation involves inherent risks, and occupiers of qualifying recreational trails often benefit from a reduced duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Whether the trail is owned by a municipality or a private landowner is only one part of the analysis. Courts focus on the nature of the property, whether section 4 applies, the condition that caused the injury, and whether the occupier acted with reckless disregard for the safety of trail users.
Every case depends on its own facts.
If you have questions about a personal injury claim arising from an accident on a recreational trail in Ottawa, Kingston, Cornwall, Carleton Place, Perth, or elsewhere in Eastern Ontario, the team at Bergeron Clifford Injury Lawyers is pleased to help. You can schedule a free consultation at https://www.bergeronclifford.com/contact-us/.
