re Kolapore: does anyone know...- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 165 of 165
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512

    re Kolapore: does anyone know...

    Who is it that is suing for personal injury incurred while riding at Kolapore? Does anyone know this clown?

    The shitty aspect of this is that those trails were started long before trail riding became popular in these parts, and the original user group has worked very hard to accomodate mountain biking as it grew throughout the 1990's. Now, those people are the ones that will end up getting the shaft. Their insurance costs are virtually certain to go up, regardless of the outcome. If by some outrageous fortune this bs lawsuit is successful, they'll be finished.

    The land owners/managers will possibly decline to permit a multi-use trail system unless it is being actively managed, including liability insurance. So, there is a legitimate concern about the future of these trails. For a change, this risk has nothing to do with the usual issues related to hikers, dog-walkers, erosion, bird-watchers, reckless destruction of the Carolinian forest, new subdivisions and roads, equestrians, naturalists, undue stress on the wild animals, or the rest of the world. It's pretty much contained within the cycling community this time.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HubbaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    911

    Drag

    I can't see it being a seasoned MTB'er, more likely someone who stumbled upon the trails through a family outting and were in way over their heads.

    I've never ridden there but the place seems to be quite good according to some of the writeups I've seen on the web.

    Post up if you hear of any other developments.


    Clem

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Braids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    819
    I haven't heard anything but I definitely intend to ride there this summer in case something does happen. I may even fall and get a chance to sue.

    IMBA may have some info on this if you contact them.

  4. #4
    almost there!
    Reputation: AJ541's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    341

    ...for not shoveling their sidewalks?

    What the hell can you sue a park land owner for when you injure YOURSELF when mountain biking on the property?

    A rock was in a bad place that made him wipe out?
    There was no place to refill his water bottle?
    He was trying to riding over a fallen tree and wiped out?
    The hills were too steep?

    I don't get it?

    It's called the f*#king outdoors.

    Can anyone explain?

  5. #5
    Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!
    Reputation: Pucker Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    323
    Crap, when did this happen???

    We should hunt the [email protected] down and beat him to death before it goes to court.

    I love that place!!!

    And you're absolutely right....those x-country skiers that maintain those trails shouldn't be taking the hit for someone else's stupidity. They've been good enough to allow mtb'ers to ride in there, what a slap in the face for their generosity.

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640

    rbart45066

    rbart4506 thinks all this stuff should just be delt with.

    "I personally think this all comes down to a bunch people being worried about losing access to the trails in their own back yard because of overuse by outsiders."

    Yup that's right.Our hikers are worried to. I don't think that the roady geeks care to much though.

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Phat Tyred
    rbart4506 thinks all this stuff should just be delt with.

    "I personally think this all comes down to a bunch people being worried about losing access to the trails in their own back yard because of overuse by outsiders."

    Yup that's right.Our hikers are worried to. I don't think that the roady geeks care to much though.
    Don't try and quote somebody out of context here...You can't just hijack somebody else's comment from one thread and bring it over to another thread and think it is okay...

    I think this thread is about somebody taking legal action because somebody fell and they are ashamed for falling there...That's it...

    I've fallen at kallopore and I didn't take legal action it's all part of the sport of learning how to mountain bike on different trails...

    Shell

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Shell_76
    Don't try and quote somebody out of context here...You can't just hijack somebody else's comment from one thread and bring it over to another thread and think it is okay...

    I think this thread is about somebody taking legal action because somebody fell and they are ashamed for falling there...That's it...

    I've fallen at kolapore and I didn't take legal action it's all part of the sport of learning how to mountain bike on different trails...

    Shell
    Thanks for your note Shell. The lawsuit is requesting over $1,000,000 in damages plus costs, expenses, and what have you. If this lawsuit has any merit at all, why have the claimaint and its lawyer refused to be interviewed??

    Once again I'm asking, does anyone know who this guy is?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    Story made it on the front page of the Star's website today.....

    http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...acodalogin=yes

    For all of you interested his name is also mentioned in the story...

    SO now everyone knows who it is...


    ----------------------------


    The pothole, the cyclists and the lawyer

    SLINGER

    The Kolapore Uplands, 5,000 hectares of the Niagara Escarpment a little south and west of the bottom end of Georgian Bay, is the largest and roughest patch of semi-wilderness left in southern Ontario. Steep and rugged, what isn't cliff face or exposed rock is hardwood forest regrown since being clear-cut a century ago.

    It is a dreamscape for the craziest risk-takers, and since the 1970s, the University of Toronto Outing Club and the Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Committee have cut 60 kilometres of trails through it that are earnestly posted "Challenging Ski Trails — Not For Novice Skiers."

    They are volunteer organizations; the trails are maintained by volunteers; anybody can use them for free. Costs are covered by donations, which totalled $2,600 this year, and the sale of a trail map without which it is easy to blunder into even greater peril.

    Since the volunteers' interest is solely skiing, in seasons when there is no snow the trails are left to fend for themselves. But in the 1990s the mountain bike appeared, and with it the mountain bikers who discovered in Kolapore the hellishly beautiful terrain that makes their testosterone-charged adrenalin bubble and boil. The best (that is, the worst) of the trails earn the highest mountain-biking accolade: radical.

    Presumably "totally radical'' would be prying open elevator doors at the CN Tower and biking down the empty shaft.

    It's unlikely that the lack of maintenance for cycling is considered a drawback.

    Then along came James Leone, 31, a Torontonian who, last Aug. 1, was on a trail that bikers grade as "easiest" when, according to documents filed in court, "suddenly and without warning his bicycle came to an abrupt stop" and he was thrown forward, "striking the ground with sudden and violent force."

    Plunging into a "hole in the ground, the depth, size and location of which constituted an unusual danger" might sound like something that's all in a day's (or five minutes') adventure for a mountain biker, except for one thing: Leone is a lawyer. As one of the country's foremost legal experts explained to me, the first thing first-year law students learn the first day of civil procedure is, when you sue, "sue everything in sight."

    Leone is suing the outing club, the ski trails committee, the regional trails network, the local municipality and the province (which owns the land where he encountered the alleged hole) — everything but the sky above and the Earth itself. He wants $1,150,000 in damages for expenses and lost income as a result of a fractured vertebra he says he suffered, while his co-plaintiff — his wife, Ashley, who wasn't biking — "sustained a loss of guidance, care and companionship" she might reasonably have expected if he hadn't run into said hole.

    Leone's stated position is that, whether they like it or not, the volunteer organizations and the province, by permitting the trails to exist on its land, are responsible for creating "a situation of danger from which the plaintiff, despite all reasonable efforts and precautions was unable to extricate himself," and that they "failed to take reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from the unusual danger, of which they knew or ought to have known."

    Leone and his lawyer declined several requests for an interview, so we don't know the answers to three questions I left on his voice mail. Was he alone? Given the seriousness of his injuries, how did he make his way from the site of the wreck? And how much mountain-biking experience did he have, or was this his first time?

    These lead to other questions. If a hole in the ground was such a surprise, would he have been better off mountain biking on a sidewalk in Toronto (although holes abound in them)? If the hole was big enough to crack up in, how did he fail to see it if he was "exercising reasonable care for his own safety" as his statement of claim attests?

    And how come nobody else crashed into such a big hole, or did they and just figured that's the way it goes?

    Certainly skiers have gotten hurt on the trails, some of them local experts, some severely — but nobody has ever sued before. Mountain biking ain't kiddie car.

    By suing, James Leone might make it so that nobody can do either. Even if he loses, chances are that the limited insurance the volunteer organizations carry will become so expensive they can't afford it, or it won't be available at all. This would force them to stop the work they've done for years. The trails would disappear.

    It is a curious thing, and it seems to be verging on epidemic — people refusing to accept responsibility for their own actions. If something bad happens to you, even if it happened because you did something beyond your abilities or plain foolish, blame somebody else. Nothing is your fault.
    Last edited by shabbasuraj; 03-31-2005 at 03:39 AM.

  10. #10
    They say I have a problem
    Reputation: rbart4506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    460
    Ok...All I can do is shake my head....
    "The meek shall inherit the earth"

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    This guy will likely lose his case. But that does not matter all that much. All of us have lost alot already because of his actions. The impact of his actions will be felt all over Ontario as groups try to protect thru INS.

    This is our new Ontario.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Braids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    819
    It sounds like this is his job.

    [Link to where he works removed.]

    You can easily find his bio online and basically his job is what this case is if that makes sense. I don't know how his case can pass the reasonable man test but it'll be interesting to see it play out in the courts.
    Last edited by Braids; 03-31-2005 at 06:47 AM.

  13. #13
    Economy Stimulator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Phat Tyred
    This guy will likely lose his case. But that does not matter all that much. All of us have lost alot already because of his actions. The impact of his actions will be felt all over Ontario as groups try to protect thru INS.

    This is our new Ontario.

    Lets go have an old fashioned lynching!

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    Remember when we were kids and the geeks who needed a beating never got one because they cried to the teacher before the problem could be corrected.

    Same here, James Leone, 31, his hand will shoot up so fast. Teacher I am being picked on.

    Stay in the city, we do not want your kind in the country.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    [QUOTE=Braids]It sounds like this is his job.

    [Link to where he works removed.]

    You can easily find his bio online and basically his job is what this case is if that makes sense. I don't know how his case can pass the reasonable man test but it'll be interesting to see it play out in the courts.[/QUOTE


    yay google...


    I hope this guys looses, we need an online petition...

  16. #16
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    We shuold all be there

    I think it would be great if as many of us that can get the day off work all show at the court house the day this trail opens. I think it is pathetic the way laywers try to justify the **** they do by saying it what a first law student learns. Your average grade 5 student knows not to try something he cant do. If I don't stop typing now I am going to get nasty.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Hair Boy
    I think it would be great if as many of us that can get the day off work all show at the court house the day this trail opens. I think it is pathetic the way laywers try to justify the **** they do by saying it what a first law student learns. Your average grade 5 student knows not to try something he cant do. If I don't stop typing now I am going to get nasty.

    Hmmm this is a great idea, I feel for those who have ridden and worked on these trails over the years... surely it means much more to those associations... we need more details regarding the trial..

  18. #18
    I already rode that
    Reputation: SuperNewb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,632
    I guess he wasnt making enough money at the firm so now is digging deeper the only way a good lawyer knows.

  19. #19
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    I think the landowners/managers could use everyone's support on this one... perhaps ppl with their own sites could set up a petition kind of a deal just to show ppls support
    Last edited by TT.; 03-31-2005 at 08:23 AM.
    I Ride, I Know

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Braids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by shabbasuraj

    yay google...


    I hope this guys looses, we need an online petition...
    As someone already said, damage is done. You better get all the riding in you can this summer because after this case goes through either way it's probably going to be very limited.
    I don't even understand how a REASONABLE PERSON wouldn't have an assumed risk of danger while mountain biking. This guy is a lawyer and this type of case appears to be his specialty and I also assume he has another lawyer working with him so there must be some merit to this case.
    I'm debating contacting the guy running the Coulson's Hill races because if he doesn't clean up after the races that will be trouble. There is no way a reasonable person would expect tape across the trails and piles of logs at intersections like the organisers leave after the races especially on the weekend after the race occured. As I've stated in another thread, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    A petition will do nothing, this is a tort matter and the best thing we could do is give money to help them (the people being sued) hire the best lawyers and pay for the rising cost in insurance.

  21. #21
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    where and how can we donate??? I think this is worth more than three or four rides at Kelso this season...
    does Kolapore have a site/donation thing set up???
    I Ride, I Know

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    27

    Countersuit...

    By all of us who are suffering anguish and physical pain because we're going to miss out riding on the trails closed due to one clown who cannot accept responsibility for his own ineptitude...

  23. #23
    They say I have a problem
    Reputation: rbart4506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    460
    There has to be a lawyer around here who is as crazy as us about mountain biking...He\She would be the perfect person to get involved in this and see if there is something that can be done...

    All I keep thinking about is the time that my wife and I were in Kolapore and decided to try the trails to the left, as you come in. Traditionally we have stayed to the right and gone out that way. That trail to the left was pretty tough in sections and there was one difficult downhill that was really slick and wet. My wife lost it and did a nice face plant. She smacked her nose and drew some blood. We stopped rested and then got back up and continued. Was the trail over her head, yes, but we didn't blame anyone except ourselves for trying it. From that point on she was just a bit more careful and enjoyed the rest of our day there....You know, kind of take responsibility for your own actions...Cripes, it's the forest, you are on a trail with rocks and logs, what more do you expect...If you want smooth and easy stick to the rail trails...

    Rich
    "The meek shall inherit the earth"

  24. #24
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Anouther solution

    Instead of all of us pitching in for leagal fees it would cheaper to hire some one to take him out. I bet we could hire some ex con to do it cheap. "You know I'm just kidding right"

  25. #25
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    I wonder if this is the goofball
    http://www.beardwinter.com/bwinter%5...bioLeoneJamesV



    let the emails fly...
    I Ride, I Know

  26. #26
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    I have seen him before

    I know I've seen that jack ass riding before I hope he dosn't sue me for calling him a jack ass.I better protect myself in my opinion he is a jack ass.

  27. #27
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Photo shop please

    Can someone who knows how to use photo shop please take his picture and give him a black eye for me. Thanks

  28. #28
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    I plastered this garbage all over the net.. everyone thinks it's bs, but OFSC gets these scumbags suing them all the time... hope the land managers get a good lawyer and the judge throws this clown out of the courtroom

    one of our members .. came up with this sketch..
    I Ride, I Know

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    55

    Even Luke Duke hates this guy.

    We should get Tom Wopat(TM) to sue this guy's band for irreperable harm caused by the use of his name.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    89

    If that's the guy, well...

    ...in my opinion his lawyering skills are about the same as his biking skills...but you can judge for yourself.

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc11939.html
    (My five year old could have won this case while jumping his bike over potholes)

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc10014.html
    (His take is about half...)

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc13183.html
    (They didn't list this case in his bio)

    I'll keep digging.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch
    ...in my opinion his lawyering skills are about the same as his biking skills...but you can judge for yourself.

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc11939.html
    (My five year old could have won this case while jumping his bike over potholes)

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc10014.html
    (His take is about half...)

    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc13183.html
    (They didn't list this case in his bio)

    I'll keep digging.



    well done.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Braids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    819
    FYI: Can you please remove the image hosted on their server and not post links to their site from here. Allow people to find the link themselves so if they happen to see an increase of traffic they don't come sniffing around here.

    Some people have said some pretty, well, I'll be honest stupid and inflamatory things in the heat of passion (pun intended?) and I don't want them getting into trouble because they were joking or having a goof.

    You can sue anybody for anything and some people just get satisfaction out the aggravation they cause the other people even if they lose. Not to mention you don't always get all your costs covered even if you win.

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    Relax
    Lawyers sue people or organizations who have money.
    They don't waste time on pennys and dimes.
    This guy knows just who to sue and how to do it.
    If you don't really have much to lose, other then sweet riding, i say fire away.
    This boy don't know squat about MTBing or the tribe.
    This ain't figure skating man.
    Trip in the GTA and sue your own you prick.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,025
    TT, I was going to mention the insurance problems snowmobiling in Ontario was having because of lawsuits. For those of you that don't know, OFSC is the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. It is the governing body for snowmobiling in Ontario.
    2008 Trek Fuel EX 8
    Apsley, Ontario, Canada

  35. #35
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    They seem to be the same thing, but the massive difference is the attack on public singletrack.

    No money or trail pass was ever given or purchased is this case.
    There should be no level of service expected.
    The forest has plants, rocks and dangerous things, he knows this.
    How can it be possible to sue in this case.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    55
    Phat TyredNo money or trail pass was ever given or purchased is this case.
    There should be no level of service expected.
    The forest has plants, rocks and dangerous things, he knows this.
    How can it be possible to sue in this case.


    You do realise this is a lawyer who advised his client to sue somebody for hitting his car when his car was the one that suddenly appeared on the wrong side of the road.

    Do you think he's available? Maybe I should sue Kenmore, Corning, and that company that makes those Terry cloths. I burned my hand when I took a steaming hot casserole dish out of the oven the other day. I lost guidance, care, and companionship too.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    I am going to sue the sun, as sometimes it burns me when I stay out to long....

    perhaps not...

  38. #38
    Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!
    Reputation: Pucker Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    323
    You think it would help if we filled in the hole?

    I'm thinking we bring some shovels, get the loser to show us where the hole is, and then stuff him in it.

    Throw some dirt on top, pat it down, problem solved!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I know I've seen that jack ass riding before
    That's what I want to hear, who's seen this guy and where? Was he a beginner rider?

    Relax
    Lawyers sue people or organizations who have money.
    They don't waste time on pennys and dimes.
    Intriguingly, the organizing club has no assets whatsoever; the only money to be gained is from the insurance company, if it can be forced to pay out. I guess that is the reason for also naming the government of Ontario in the lawsuit!

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    Sue every week kneed Ins. company in sight.
    Get them all involved and around the table.
    They all have coverage for 5 million.
    Spread the payment out between everyone.
    Just a little from each party will total a good sum.
    Each will pay alot less then 5 million, so they think they have some how won.
    If the case was throwin out on its butt in the first place why would people want to pay for our service.
    Cops need criminals to pay the mortgage.
    Insurance companys need Lawyers

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    where and how can we donate??? I think this is worth more than three or four rides at Kelso this season...
    does Kolapore have a site/donation thing set up???
    Yes, there will a website with PayPal donations coming soon. It won't be a tax deductible thing, but all that's needed is a few dollars from most folks who ride there, and any extra insurance costs could easily be covered. There has been a lot of support over the years from cyclists in terms of trail work but the organizers who are mostly skiers haven't contacted the cycling community in any organized way for financial support.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    Very cool
    I look forward to showing my support for all Kalopore volunteers.

    This would need to be given as individuals.
    Given as an organization it would create another target.

    If you help a trail system in any way, shape or form, you can be sued for helping to create an enviroment where a GTA butt wipe, could hurt himself.

    As an individual the chances of being sued are almost zero.
    And if your bike is worth more then your truck, like me, well as the saying goes, you can't get blood from a stone.

    But for all the GTA people who don't already know, you can get blood from a smash face.

  43. #43
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Like this

    Photo shop is fun
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg 0.jpg (11.8 KB, 405 views)

  44. #44
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001

    Ambulance follower.

    Quote Originally Posted by shabbasuraj
    well done.

    From the looks of those links the guy is a second rate ambulance chaser. Shurley there must be some more flattering cases onthe books.
    "Newfoundland dogs are good to save children from drowning, but you must have a pond of water handy" - Josh Billings

  45. #45
    livin' large
    Reputation: canadian-clydesdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    534
    Maybe he should also sue the manufacturer of his bicycle for not puting an anti- fall down go boom boom device on his bike. Every day we become more like the good ol' USA, with the "its not my fault I have the balance and dexterity of a drunken toddler", gimmee gimmee gimmee attitude.....Wanker
    it tied the room together man!

  46. #46
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Here is anouther discusion on this topic


  47. #47
    They say I have a problem
    Reputation: rbart4506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    460

    Here's some my brother passed on...

    Have a read...

    Lawsuits on the trails

    Some mountain bike riders are suing after falls, putting use of outdoor
    trails in peril

    Michele Henry
    Local News - Friday, April 08, 2005 @ 08:00

    Joe Connell removed the trail section from his website because he feared he
    might be sued.

    The mountain bike enthusiast and owner of The Bike Zone in Barrie runs
    organized rides all over southern Ontario via the Internet. The trail
    section, he said, was a resource about paths to ride, touting certain tracks
    over others.

    But when the 27-year-old heard a Toronto man recently sued an organization
    similar to his after injuring himself on a trail near Collingwood last
    summer, Connell got nervous.

    This is a real sore spot, he said. I have rabid cyclists beating down my
    door and Id love to tell them (about the good trails), but I cant.

    Connell said people, such as James Leone, the 31-year-old plaintiff from
    Toronto in the case, are doing a disservice for the sport and making
    cyclists seem like whiney babies.

    Its giving us all a bad reputation, he said. And if this continues the
    trails will eventually close down.

    While shes nowhere near to shutting down her trails, the owner of Hardwood
    Hills Nordic Ski and Mountain Bike Centre, said insurance on the mountain
    bike centre has gone up four times in the last few years.


    Fees to use the Oro-Medonte Township centre have increased as the $120,000
    cost of liability insurance trickles down to patrons.

    People are more litigious than ever before, said Kim Viney. Weve had to
    put a huge emphasis on risk management.

    In some cases Vineys been forced to ramp up safety precautions to
    ridiculous heights.

    Patrons have to sign complicated waivers to participate in any activity or
    rent equipment on the grounds and staff have to log every time they ride the
    trails for personal use.

    Policy at Hardwood Hills dictates every car in the parking lot must be
    accounted for before the centre is shut down for the night. Recently, Viney
    had to keep staff for six hours after closing and call in the OPP to search
    her 658-acre lot for the owner of a car left unspoken for on the lot.

    These are the concerns we have because of increased liability, Viney said.
    Patrons get annoyed with us because were being sticky, but we have no
    choice.

    After several hours the patron returned, explaining he went for dinner with
    friends and left his car. Viney charged him for the time spent making sure
    he wasnt injured somewhere on her property.

    In business for 22 years without incurring one lawsuit, Viney said it is in
    the last two years only that her centre has been sued four times.

    Its not that anythings changed on our end, she said. Things can happen
    that arent our fault but were still going to be held accountable.

    Viney contends that peoples attitudes have changed over the recent past,
    which she believes accounts for the increased litigation. They relinquish
    all responsibility for their personal actions and decisions, she said.

    To Connell, the recent liability issues confirm that some people choose to
    ignore the normal and inherent risks in a sport like mountain biking.

    He feels no sympathy for injured cyclists, especially because Connell has
    hurt himself once or twice hes got stitches along his knees to prove it.

    If youre not prepared to take the risk dont do the sport, he said.

    Mike Headford, a 22-year-old avid mountain biker, said hes dislocated his
    ankle while riding. I never even thought of suing. Its not anyones fault
    other than mine, he said.

    The manager of Monovans, a sport store on Bayfield Street in Barrie,
    Headford said it is the rough terrain and unpredictability of the trail that
    makes riding worthwhile.

    Thats the fun part of it and the whole point, he said.



    Legal case worrying to trail groups:

    James Leone, 31, claims he suffered various enduring injuries after flying
    over the handlebars of his bike, while riding a trail in the Kolapore
    Uplands near Collingwood last August.

    In his lawsuit he names the University of Toronto Outing Club, the Kolapore
    Uplands wilderness ski trails committee, The Bruce-Grey Trails Network, the
    Town of the Blue Mountains and the province of Ontario.

    Leone maintains the trail was not properly maintained, creating a dangerous
    situation. He said that despite reasonable efforts and precautions he was
    unable to protect himself from harm.

    Trail groups fear the case, if decided in favour of Leone, could drive up
    insurance rates for clubs that maintain the trail across the province.
    "The meek shall inherit the earth"

  48. #48
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    way to go Joe plaster this puckers name all over the news, make him look like azz....
    I still hope you'll cough up the trail locations to us though
    I Ride, I Know

  49. #49
    They say I have a problem
    Reputation: rbart4506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    460
    If youre not prepared to take the risk dont do the sport, Perfect comment....Hence the reason I don't do Downhill or Freeride and just stick to XC...
    "The meek shall inherit the earth"

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,276

    ... and if we just ... shoot the guy in the head

    The guy knows the trail is not maintained. He is novice rider who ventured in trails that are way over his head. Any trail can have small hole. It is due to natural erosion from rain. He is seeking publicity from the trial to increase exposure for his law firm. This is the best advertising any law firm ever get without paying the actual cost.

    I suggest somebody in GTA bump him off at night when he gets home from work. The guy is a dam a $$$hole. I fell off the bike on the trail so what. I don't sue Dagmar. Mountaing biking sport is inherently dangerous activity which user must take responsibility for his/her action. I hate it when these dam greedy lawyers ruin all the fun for us. They probably closed down the trail by now. Damn it .

    Perhaps, someone should kidnap him and ship him to Afganhanistan hand him over to the Taliban. Let the them deal with him. We can tell the Taliban that he is CIA.

  51. #51
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    640
    Picard how much rain do you think it would take to make the trails at Kalopore suffer from natural erosion?

    This guy kind of looks girly, i thought you would want to bear hug him, not kill him.

  52. #52
    They say I have a problem
    Reputation: rbart4506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    460
    This guy kind of looks girly, i thought you would want to bear hug him, not kill him
    *LMAO*....

    See there are chicks on the trail...
    "The meek shall inherit the earth"

  53. #53

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3

    The News

    First I want to thank rbart4506 for posting that article, I think this is an issue that we all have to all watch very close. Phat Tyred is very right though, regardless of the outcome, this person has done cyclists a horrific injustice. I was told that there is a fund where people can donate money to defence against this lawsuit, does anyone know more about this?

    Next I have to correct some things that the reporter ( as all reporters do) got wrong . theride.ca is infact not my website but my good friend's, I am but the gimp that helps when I can. . He organizes the rides, takes the picks and does all the hard work. I would hate to steal his thunder.

    Also Mike Headford is NOT the manager of Monovan's, he is a manager here at The Bike Zone... In fact in our discussion with the reporter ( where both Mike and I were here in the shop) no mention of monovan's was even made. but I do think that the reporter got the gist of it and helped put the right perspective on what I was trying to get across.

    Keep the rubber side down.

    Joe

    www.thebikezone.com

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I was told that there is a fund where people can donate money to defence against this lawsuit, does anyone know more about this?
    I think the insurance company is handling the legal expenses for the moment. Looking ahead, there will certainly be a need for cyclists to help out with insurance costs, which are about $2000 annually at present but likely to increase as a result of this lawsuit. Considering the number of people who ride there, it would actually only take a few dollars per person per year to cover this, similar to what you would pay at Hardwood for a single ride. There will be a website with PayPal donations coming soon, and I hope that anyone who is serious about trail riding in Ontario will find time to contribute a small amount.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,025

    Sunday Sun Article

    This was in yesterday's Sunday Sun :

    Lawsuit a threat to trails

    CYCLISTS FEAR FOR SPORT

    A MOUNTAIN biker who launched a million-dollar lawsuit after falling off his bike has lit a fire under Collingwood area bike enthusiasts who fear the suit will close their trails. James Leone is suing the Toronto Outing Club and its Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Committee as well as the Town of The Blue Mountains, the Grey-Bruce Trails Network and the province for an accident he had while mountain biking last August.

    The 31-year-old personal injury lawyer from Toronto claims he suffered fractured vertebrae and several soft-tissue injuries when his bicycle came to an abrupt stop after hitting a hole in the trail, sending him over the handlebars.

    "It's a crying shame," said "die-hard" mountain biker Mark Derrick, who helped organize a meeting of concerned bikers in Collingwood yesterday.

    "We have hundreds of miles of amazing trails in this area and most of us realize that if you take on this sport, you take on a challenge and a risk." He said his wife, Lynn, has dislocated her shoulder by falling on the trails twice but never considered a lawsuit.

    "This suit does cause a concern that the trails will be threatened," said trail specialist with the International Mountain Bike Association, Laura Woolner. "The case could set a precedent for other cases in Ontario and that could have an enormous impact on non-profit clubs who will have to purchase huge amounts of insurance to keep trails open. Essentially it could shut them down," she said.
    2008 Trek Fuel EX 8
    Apsley, Ontario, Canada

  56. #56
    Jos
    Jos is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28
    This guy is a jack-ass

    The 31-year-old personal injury lawyer from Toronto
    That says it all, right there. Scum of the scum.

  57. #57
    TT.
    TT. is offline
    wheeler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    561
    did you guys notice how the pucker took the pic off their site.... whadda puckin' tool (in my opinion )

    good thing we have that scetch you can run...but you can NOT hide motherpucker (in my opinion )
    I Ride, I Know

  58. #58
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    I heard a bit of gossip on this one, don't know if it's true but here goes. I've heard versions of this story from two separate sources quite independently, one quite close to one of the horse's mouths...

    Supposedly the lawsuit was dropped after the guy came under pressure from senior members of his law firm. One version of the story says that they didn't like the bad publicity the case was drawing to the firm; another says that at least one of the senior guys was a regular user of Kolapore himself.

    Again, I have no idea if this is true or not, but I do think the case has been dropped.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I think I heard that rumour as well somewhere... some other forum I guess. However one of the defendants indicated in December that this case is still on and it's not even clear if it will be finished in 2007.
    Last edited by Kay.; 01-12-2007 at 03:25 PM.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,025

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I
    Supposedly the lawsuit was dropped after the guy came under pressure from senior members of his law firm. One version of the story says that they didn't like the bad publicity the case was drawing to the firm; another says that at least one of the senior guys was a regular user of Kolapore himself.
    If that's true, I bet they're making his work days a living hell.
    2008 Trek Fuel EX 8
    Apsley, Ontario, Canada

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,025
    FYI.
    Buddy has been seen walking around downtown Toronto, and he's working, so it's not like he was paralyzed or anything from the accident.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  62. #62

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    https://www.beardwinter.com/people/profile.asp?56
    phone: (416) 306-1744, email: [email protected]



    I've heard the suit is still in ongoing - in discovery or something.

    The above is entirely public information. May I suggest a gentlemanly and politely worded email to him inquiring as to the status of his suit if people want some finality on this issue?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,025

    ... and if we just ...

    Nothing on the website about him being a lousy MTBer.
    2008 Trek Fuel EX 8
    Apsley, Ontario, Canada

  64. #64

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Oh man... check out the 'wanted dead or alive' thread in this forum

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    delete double post.
    Last edited by shabbasuraj; 04-09-2007 at 10:51 AM.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Oh man... check out the 'wanted dead or alive' thread in this forum

    got a direct link...?

    search is crapping out on me right now...

  67. #67

  68. #68
    Looking for Adventure
    Reputation: Ricksom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,060

    We the people ... Update - from court documents

    First, I would like to make my personal legal disclaimer, as the legal vultures are always lurking and more than willing to find weaknesses to attack.

    The following is solely my opinion as a citizen of Canada, and my right to have an opinion. I am not a lawyer, judge, politician, officer of the law, or a civil servant. I am assuming that MTBR.COM is a forum where one can post an opinion as long as there is no violation of the criminal code. I am the product of the Canadian, Ontario, and Peel education systems, so if my articulation or interpretation of the English language is not accurate or misleading, dont blame me.

    First of all I have the notes filled as Leone v. University of Toronto, Barrie Court File No. 04-B8059, heard before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 3 and September 6, 2006, with judgment on September 25, 2006.

    There are some important items that are mentioned in the Findings section of the document, that are useful for the public and land owners alike to know about to provide ever increasing wisdom in the world we live in.

    - Always put up signage indicating users of trail must do so at own risk, and that trails are not regularly maintained, inspected, and may contain hazards. Otherwise you could be held responsible for accidents if you own the land or had a hand in building the trails.

    - Signage must be at all points of trail entry, not just the head of trails. Mr. Leone apparently entered the trails system on a side road and therefore saw no signs.

    - Even though you may only allow trails to be used for cross country skiing during the winter months, the fact you may be doing trail maintenance during other months of the year means that the trails are your responsibility all year round (unless you put up signage mentioned in first point, or clearly put up signage prohibiting other specific activities).

    - If you know that other types of users are using your trails for other activities than intended, like mountain biking, ATVs, camping, or horseback riding, then you have a duty of care (ie. responsibility) for these people. Unless, of course, you put up signage as mentioned in first point.

    - If someone has an accident on your property, always make sure you act by doing something to prevent it from happening next time. Otherwise you will be accused of negligence if you do nothing.

    - Even though a hole may be created by an ATV on your trails, causing someone to trip over it and break their spine, you are responsible for this hazard and fixing it (unless you have clear signs indicating that ATVs are not allowed, or again, if you have signage as mentioned in first point).

    From the statements of the court mentioned in this document, it appears that Mr. Leone has a good case to win so far.
    SUCCESS - To be able to spend life in your own way

  69. #69
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    Can someone post a link to these documents or mail them to me?
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  70. #70
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    The docs are very interesting. This is my reading of them, but IANAL.

    The Crown & U of T Committee asked for summary judgement, basically saying that Leone didn't have a case. The court turned them down and said that there were severable triable issues to be decided.

    The case hinges in part on whether the Kolapore uplands are "rural" "vacant" "undeveloped" "forested" or "wilderness", or whether they are "recreational trails".

    If the former, Leone is presumed to have willingly assumed all risks associated with entry.

    If the latter, and the trails were correctly posted, then Leone would have to show that the Crown created a danger with deliberate intent of doing harm, or acted with reckless disregard for his safety.

    So Leone is arguing that Kolapore is neither wilderness nor correcly posted recreational trails, as defined by the Occupier's Liability Act 1999. He claims that MNR has not met the duty of care that would be required, and that since there were no "use at own risk" disclaimers at the trailheads, they are liable.


    The summary judgement says nothing at all about whether either the Crown or U of T Committee ARE liable, only that given the facts and the law, Leone has an arguable case and it should proceed to trial.

    We should all hope it DOES go to trial because whatever the outcome, it will clarify the legal situation.

    What seems to be reasonably clear from the transcript is that if the trails had been correctly posted at the trailheads with a "use at your own risk" disclaimer, there would have been no case in the first place.

    Also: a subtext is that ATV use on MNR lands governed by the so-called Free Use policy causes hazards for other trail users (I couldn't work out if the hole Leone fell into was an ATV track but it seems very possible from the documents).
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  71. #71
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    What I meant to add above was that the questions about whether Mr Leone took reasonable precautions to avoid injury etc have yet to be addressed in court.

    It seems inconceivable to me that someone who considered themselves an experienced MTBer, especially if they had ridden Kolapore several times before, could not have been aware of the potential dangers, or the reputation of Kolapore as a challenging trail system, and no doubt the defence will make this point as powerfully as they are able.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  72. #72

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Kudos Ricksom! Nice work tracking down some docs. How much did it cost you - I'd be willing to help defray your costs if you like.

    I'm curious how much pressure and hassle this jackass has been receiving vis a vis those 'wanted dead or alive' posters folks are putting up. Does anyone have any other ideas about how the heat could be turned up on this **********?

  73. #73
    Looking for Adventure
    Reputation: Ricksom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,060
    Well, don't really thank me. Nogg's got the paperwork. I just felt I should post a public service of advice, and it appears that Mr. Pink did the legal interpretation of the case.

    Lots of people looking at this you know!
    SUCCESS - To be able to spend life in your own way

  74. #74

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Well then thank-you Nogg!

  75. #75

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    [edit]
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-10-2007 at 02:59 PM.

  76. #76
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    RA, you know I respect you, but I do not think that the posters and harrassment are the way to go with this.

    The outcome of this case will be reported widely and if Leone were to claim that he had been harrassed or received threats from the MTB community, it would be a horrible black eye. It will put anyone advocating for the MTB community on the back foot. It makes us look like a bunch of goons.

    The posters and other stuff may seem funny and/or make folk feel better but they do not help the cause one bit. Not one bit.

    Like it or not, Leone clearly has a case which is arguable in law and it is in everyone's interest to get it cleared up. The courts have jurisdiction here, and if his case is ridiculous, he will lose. Courts are not stupid.

    What would really help would be for MTBers to publicise this case and make rational arguments about why MTB access to trails is good for everyone. When it comes to trial later this year or sometime next year, people should go to court wearing MTB gear and be prepared to tell everyone why this case is so important. Civil, public support for the plaintiffs and the principle involved is much, much more helpful than trying to pressure someone from withdrawing a legitimate action by these kinds of tactics.

    By the way, I am sure that the reason Leone is not saying anything publicly is that courts hate parties to an action trying it in the court of public opinion before the trial itself.

    Just to be really clear in case by saying all of this I pull down 'teh hate' on myself, I obviously would like to see this action fail since it has cast a pall over trail access for all of us. However I would like to see it fail in court so that justice can be seen to be done, rather than being settled out of court, which clarifies nothing.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  77. #77

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    So when the law is in conflict with doing the right thing, then what are we supposed to do? Sit back and let old white guys decided what is best for the land and trails? **** that.

    I'm not gonna be the one doing it, but Mr. Leone deserves to have his life made miserable. Even if he wins, if someone were to make a public example of him in a very ugly way...I think that will impress upon people in the future not to initiate such legal actions. People are social creatures, and quite prone to peer pressure and community expectations.

    He started it. If he wants to stop it, he can drop the suit and take out a full page ad in the the newspaper stating he's dropped it and apologizing.

    Courts hate people "trying cases in the court of public opinion" because they know that their own verdict is impotent and that people can't be easily controlled. If the law doesn't work, then step righteously outside of it, IMO. He's abusing the system for his own benefit, ergo the system is part of the problem.

    This suit can set a dangerous precedent. Dangerous enough that I believe it could be successfully argued that the exertion of maximum prejudice against Mr. Leone is justified.

  78. #78
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    The problem with that argument, RA, is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your approach legitimises direct action against MTBers by people who don't approve of their (legal) access to trails. We have both seen that in the Don (trail sabotage).

    If it is okay for you to bypass the courts, because you think you are right, then presumably it is okay for them, if they think they are right?

    You may not like that 'a bunch of old white guys*' decide what is best for the land and trails but let me put it this way: it is the worst possible option, except for all of the others.

    When you fight the law, the law usually wins. That's why it's called the law.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  79. #79

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    If they think what they're doing is right, who am I and how am I to stop them? The law is a straw dog anyways, useful only for punishment and not prevention. It's only by upbringing and habit that people obey it. Anarchy, lawlessness and societal collapse is only 3 meals away, my friend

    We are all the arbiters of what we think is best for the world. So, when this puts two people in conflict, somehow someway things will get worked out. I don't know how, and I don't care how. I trust that to the universe and the karma of the participants. I only know that I am sick of the time, energy and other overhead that goes into a slow legal system that's practically designed to screw us in these kinds of matters.

    I'm not advocating fighting the law. I'm advocating IGNORING it when it doesn't conform to righteous behaviour and land use.

    If we all waited for the law to get things done and taken care of, I think we'd be in exceptionally poor state as a society. Society is made of people, not laws. If someone were to attack you (and you couldn't run away) are you gonna wait for the cops to show up and stop it? No, you'll defend yourself. I don't see this case much differently.

    Besides, the USA has demonstrated that unilateral action ignoring laws and customs is completely acceptable and necessary in todays world to protect your best interests. Who am I argue to with that?
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-10-2007 at 03:44 PM.

  80. #80
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    You do realise this is a LAWYER we're talking about? Who knows the LAW? Who has demonstrated that he is happy to USE it?


    Threaten death or bodily harm

    Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offence to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.

    Penalties

    The offence of utter death threat may be prosecuted by summary conviction or by indictment. If prosecuted by indictment, the accused person is entitled to elect trial by jury and upon conviction is liable to up to five years jail. In most cases, however, the offence is prosecuted by summary conviction, requiring a trial before a lower court justice. In this case, the maximum penalty is 18 months imprisonment.

    What the Crown must prove

    To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.

    also

    Criminal Harassment

    Criminal harassment is the legal term for stalking, which is a form of behaviour. It was introduced into Canadas Criminal Code in April 1993. The purpose of the legislation is to better protect victims of criminal harassment by responding to harassing behaviour with stiffer penalties before more serious harm results. It is defined in section 264 of the Criminal Code as follows:

    (1) Criminal Harassment: No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

    (2) Prohibited Conduct: The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of:

    (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

    (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

    (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

    (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  81. #81

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Based on the above legal information, it would appear that myself and no-one I know is in any kind of danger. I don't see how web posting public information disseminated from a website *specifically* intended to disseminate such information for marketing purposes poses any risk. For all we know, it's driving additional business to him enhancing his career and making him wealthier. I am confident that Mr. Leone wishes to become well known or he wouldn't advertise this information to attract business.

  82. #82
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    I wasn't addressing you specifically, RA. There are one or two people here however who could do themselves a favour by going back through the thread and considering how what they have written could be misinterpreted.

    Anyone who thinks Mr Leone or at the very least his friends/lawyers don't read this thread is insane.

    My larger point remains: none of this chest-puffing crap makes MTBers look good.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  83. #83

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Hehe... if Mr. Leone and his friends are reading this, I hope they all get ass cancer and die slowly, that their wives & girlfriends become pregnant by other men, and that their children don't turn out like them. And that whatever their children's favourite activity is gets ruined and eliminated 'cos of some twat who passed the bar.

    What was that quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part II ? Ah yes... "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.". Too bad I have a cousin who's a lawyer :/

  84. #84
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    /gives up
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  85. #85

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Ok.. time for some hearsay... a friend of someone I trust (wow, how many urban legends start out this way?) has indicated that Mr. Leone has considered defamation and harassment lawsuits against a number of people.

    It would seem this guy is getting bothered by all the attention. So whatever some of you folks are doing is having an effect I don't know what would happen if the pressure were stepped up. Might not be good as some folks have said. Then again, who knows.

    You know what might be a great idea? Since Mr. Leone is a cyclist, it'd be sweet if all the bike stores within driving distance had the knowledge and option to refuse to selling him anything because they know who he is and what he's done. How many of the bike shops in Toronto are aware of him, his name and what he looks like, and what he's done?
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-11-2007 at 08:17 AM.

  86. #86

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Also, I've contacted a few magazines and large newspapers to spread the story about the lawsuit (though it was fairly well known all over the place in 2005). I could use more help in this regard.

    Mr. Leone is fast becoming known the world over.

    I think another good next step would be to start exerting pressure on his employer via boycotts of Beard Winter LLP (130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 701, Toronto, M5H 2K4). Let's hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.

    They specialize in the following areas of law: Business & Financial, Insurance Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hah!), Business Litigation, Domestic / Family Law, and Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations.

    If you know anyone that has need of lawyers, urge them to take their business elsewhere until Mr. Leone sees it fit to drop his suit and take out an ad in a popular daily newspaper stating he's dropped the suit as well as apologizing.

    If anyone you know is currently using a Beard Winter LLP lawyer, encourage them to dump the lawyer (with explanation) and use the services of another firm. The Law Society of Upper Canada can help them locate an alternate qualified lawyer that they can use, go here: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/public/a/finding/. Numbers for the Law Society are (toll free) 1-800-668-7380, general line 416-947-3300, and fax 416-947-5263. Email is [email protected]

    Additionally, the beardwinter.com domain appears to be hosted (via whois) by TeraGo Networks Inc, Suite 300, 300 Manning Road N.E., Calgary, AB, T2E 8K4, (866) 837-2462, fax (403) 668-5344. Perhaps the provider could be politely informed of what's going on... who knows, maybe they (of their own accord) willl have a (legal) option of refusing to renew their domain hosting or things like that. If they lose their web presence that might be inconvenient and financially painful for them.

    Just had another idea... if you're a bicycle courier, or you know bicycle couriers... encourage them to avoid performing deliveries and pickups to and from Beard Winter LLP. Someone else can do it, they don't have to.
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-11-2007 at 08:24 AM.

  87. #87
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Mr. Leone is fast becoming known the world over.
    http://www.beardwinter.com/people/profile.asp?56

    Practising since 2001.
    Graduated from University of Western Ontario in 1996 (Hons. B. A.)
    Queen's University (LL.B.) in 1999
    Attached Images Attached Images

  88. #88

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Does anyone know what's required to have a lawyer disbarred?

    Perhaps someone could examine all of this guys court proceedings, dig up dirt on him via public sources, dissatisfied clients, public sources, etc. Hire a private investigator? If something entirely legitimate is found perhaps it could be used to prevent him from further practice as a lawyer.

  89. #89
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Does anyone know what's required to have a lawyer disbarred?

    Perhaps someone could examine all of this guys court proceedings, dig up dirt on him via public sources, dissatisfied clients, public sources, etc. Hire a private investigator? If something entirely legitimate is found perhaps it could be used to prevent him from further practice as a lawyer.
    Apparently he's quite successfull...he's only doing what he's been trained to do, and as a lawyer, doesn't expect to be liked.

    As Leone is a partner (he may actually be an associate) in the firm, the only thing you can do is to contact their managing partner and tell him what you think...if he gets enough notes, he may make this thing go away

  90. #90

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Hmm. Too bad he's that high up.

    Mr. Leone must have made enemies (from a business point of view) over the years. Perhaps there's something viable we could obtain from that angle. He must have pissed off someone, now's their chance.

    Anyone here into financial and business analysis? Chances are Beard Winter LLP has other financial involvements and/or holdings. We should find out what they are and target them for boycott as well.

  91. #91
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Hmm. Too bad he's that high up.

    Mr. Leone must have made enemies (from a business point of view) over the years. Perhaps there's something viable we could obtain from that angle. He must have pissed off someone, now's their chance.

    Anyone here into financial and business analysis? Chances are Beard Winter LLP has other financial involvements and/or holdings. We should find out what they are and target them for boycott as well.
    best you let that thought go...

    ...the only thing that motivates lawyers is money. If Leone doen't meet his billing quota he will be let go, so its best to not support him and hopefully he'll have to work harder at finding new clients.

    The problem here is that his clients think that Kolapore is a good thing...it shows that he's willing to take on big cases and has the expertise to litigate against a town, MNR, and the clubs. This case probably brought in a lot of new business.

    So, if you can expose this on some other boards or blogs where normal people go...or show the absurdity of his case in the local press, something may happen...

    ...new clients want their lawyers to be successfull, but will stay away from those that look like fools...it reflects badly on them as well. Sort of like going to a barber who has a bad haircut...you know he doesn't cut his own hair, but still...

    BTW...he's not that high up...a lawyer with only 6 years in practice is very junior...I wonder why he graduated law in 1999 and started practicing in 2001...think he failed his bar ads twice?
    Last edited by JM01; 04-11-2007 at 09:06 AM.

  92. #92

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    I wonder why he graduated law in 1999 and started practicing in 2001...think he failed his bar ads twice?

    That's an interesting question. I know a few people who are articling, I'll see about asking them how a 2 year lapse from graduation to practicing law is perceived and if it might be an indicator of incompetence.

    I suspect I'll also point them in the direction of the Kolapore lawsuit story. Perhaps if it makes the rounds in law student circles Beard-Winter will find themselves having trouble attracting talent? Or at least ridiculed and embarrassed.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    518
    Man what a waste of time and money. Not reading everything about the suit, did he even include the name of the bike company that he was riding? Not that I want him to, it just most lawyers wouldn't leave anything out. I bet that if he does, they will counter sue for what an idiot this guy is and that he has no business riding a bike, especially on a trail.

    If you really want to bug this guy, you can always put a personal ad out on craigslist with his picture on it asking to hook up with a guy for a night! Include his email address! Or better yet the law firms email address!

    LOL!!!!

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricksom
    First, I would like to make my personal legal disclaimer, as the legal vultures are always lurking and more than willing to find weaknesses to attack.

    ...

    There are some important items that are mentioned in the Findings section of the document, that are useful for the public and land owners alike to know about to provide ever increasing wisdom in the world we live in.

    ....

    - Even though you may only allow trails to be used for cross country skiing during the winter months, the fact you may be doing trail maintenance during other months of the year means that the trails are your responsibility all year round (unless you put up signage mentioned in first point, or clearly put up signage prohibiting other specific activities).

    - If you know that other types of users are using your trails for other activities than intended, like mountain biking, ATVs, camping, or horseback riding, then you have a duty of care (ie. responsibility) for these people. Unless, of course, you put up signage as mentioned in first point.

    - If someone has an accident on your property, always make sure you act by doing something to prevent it from happening next time. Otherwise you will be accused of negligence if you do nothing.

    - Even though a hole may be created by an ATV on your trails, causing someone to trip over it and break their spine, you are responsible for this hazard and fixing it (unless you have clear signs indicating that ATVs are not allowed, or again, if you have signage as mentioned in first point).

    From the statements of the court mentioned in this document, it appears that Mr. Leone has a good case to win so far.
    Thanks Ricksom and others for the legwork on this.

    I hope I'm not the only one that finds these "findings" to be spectacularly frustrating. These things just aren't right. It may be the law, but it just doesn't make any rational sense.

    Re ATV's (and snowmobiles) the Kolapore people have been fighting a losing battle on that front for several years. Just this year it has been decided to surrendur a portion of the trail system, that has existed for some 20+ years, to the mechanized sports enthusiasts. That's right, it'll be closed and wiped off the map. And not because they are worried that a mechanized sports enthusiast will fall off his machine and sue for wan meelyon dollars, but because of the collision danger posed to the non-mechanized users of the trails. To insinuate that the trail managers are responsible for any injury incurred by the mechanized sports enthusiasts who are running them off their own trails is f*(&$(&#(*$ing ridiculous. You lawyers out there have got some serious credibility issues. I mean, it's a running joke that every Canadian knows, but this is my first real experience with it and man is it bitter.

  95. #95

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Ok Folks.... grab a coffee.... this is going to be a long read. Very long. It's a copy sent to me of the summary judegment in this case.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between James Leone, Plaintiff, and University of Toronto Outing Club, Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Association and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services, Defendants

    INDEXED AS: Leone v. University of Toronto

    Barrie Court File No. 04-B8059

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    JUDGES: J.H. Jenkins J.

    [2006] O.J. No. 4131; 2006 ON.C. LEXIS 4046

    DATE INFORMATION: August 3 and September 6, 2006 Judgment: September 25, 2006.

    JUDGMENT DATE: September 25, 2006

    COUNSEL:
    [*1]

    Susan Healey, for the Plaintiff

    Timothy Alexander, for the Queen in Right of Ontario

    Shannon Parsons, for the University of Toronto Outing Club and Kolapore Uplands

    JUDGMENT:
    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

    [1] J.H. JENKINS J.:-- This is a motion by the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario for the following relief:



    (a) an order dismissing the plaintiff's action as against the Crown;

    (b) an order dismissing the cross-claim of the University of Toronto Outing Club (UTOC) and the Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Committee (Committee) as against the Crown;



    [2] The defendant, University of UTOC and Committee, bring this motion for the following:



    (a) summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims relating to liability for the plaintiff's fall;

    (b) an order dismissing the cross-claim of the defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario against it.



    [3] The grounds for the motions are:



    (a) Rules 20.01(3), 20.04(2)(a), 20.04(4), 20.05, 37, 39, and 51.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;

    (b) There is no genuine issue for trial with respect to the plaintiff's claims against the Crown nor against the other defendants respecting the Occupiers' Liability [*2] claims;

    (c) UTOC and Committee claim they were not owners or occupiers of the lands on which the plaintiff alleged he fell.



    [4] UTOC and the Committee claim they were not owners or occupiers.

    [5] The Crown was the owner of the lands upon which the plaintiff alleges he fell.

    ADMITTED FACTS

    [6] On August 1, 2004, James Leone (Leone), the plaintiff, sustained a compression fracture of his thoracic spine as a result of being thrown from his bicycle when he came to an abrupt stop while mountain biking on a trail in the Kolapore Uplands located in the Collingwood Township.

    [7] Leone was an experienced cyclist and had utilized this area for cycling on approximately four other occasion.

    [8] The cause of the accident apparently occurred on a grass covered hole describe by Leone at approximately 1 foot in depth at its deepest. The Crown's investigator, measured a depression at approximately 22 inches in width, 36 inches long and 9 inches in depth at it deepest point.

    [9] For a number of years the Crown had issued a permit to Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails at a cost of $ 26.75 to permit Committee to operate ski trails during the winter months over property where Leone [*3] allegedly fell. This permit was subject to a variety of conditions including an indemnification agreement to the Crown. This permit was pursuant to a Free Use policy exercised by the Ministry of Natural Resources (see Motion Record of the Crown para. 2 a-c). The parties agree that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act R.S.O 1990 c. P.27 s. 5(1)(c) and 7(3). Section 7(3) provides "no proceedings shall be brought against the Crown under clause 5(1)(c) unless notice required by s.s. (1) is served on the Crown within 10 days after the claim arose". Section 5(1)(c) quotes as follows:



    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, and despite sections 11 of the Interpretation Act, the Crown is subject to all liabilities in tort to which, if it were a person of full age and capacity, it would be subject,

    (c) in respect of any breach of the duties attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.



    [10] Leone's law firm sent out a letter 11 days after the incident on August 12, 2004.

    [11] Leone entered the lands at an access point from the 6th Side Road. There were no signs at this point where the trail crossed the road.

    [12] The Crown admits that [*4] it does not post any signs in the Kolapore Uplands with respect to the trails. Nor does it require the Committee to post any signs on the trails or at the entrance points.

    [13] The Crown's land policy for recreational trails requires that the land use permits issued to the Committee contains a notice under the Occupiers Liability Act that requires wording acceptable to the Ministry. "The signs must indicate that trail users use the trail at their own risk." These signs erected by the Committee (see Motion Record E p.40) indicates that they are maintained by volunteers. Absent from the sign is wording that indicates that the trails are to be used at the public's own risk or that they are maintained or inspected only during certain months of the year.

    [14] The Kolapore Uplands contains a series of trails frequented by cross-country skiers, horseback riders, ATV users, cycles, hikers and rock climbers. The use of summer trails in the summer has met or exceeded the use of the trails in the winter since 2001.

    [15] The Crown represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) issued a land use permit to the Committee effective December 1 to April 15. This contains the following: [*5]



    1) to ensure that the trail users travel only on the marked trails;

    2) to indemnify the Ministry for any costs, damages or losses;

    3) to undertake provisions of the Occupiers' Liability Act, as appropriate.



    [16] There is no written policy that specifically addresses the MNR's maintenance or inspection of the Kolapore Trials.

    [17] The Crown is unaware of what the Committee does to inspect or maintain the trails. The Crown has never posted signs warning cyclists that the trails were not inspected or maintained year round, and did not to require the Committee to post warning signs.

    [18] The Committee does nothing formally to inspect or monitor the trails during the spring and summer.

    [19] The Committee organizes work parties to inspect and maintain the trails over approximately three to four weekends, which has historically occurred in October or November.

    [20] The volunteer workers include members of the UTOC and the committee, and on rare occasions, high school students. A trail captain goes out with each trail party, who is considered to have expertise by virtue of being along-term volunteer.

    [21] In addition to blazing trails, the UTOC trail work consists [*6] of a pre-season inspection, inspecting and repairing bridges, inspecting and repairing signs, removing the fallen trees and branches, removal of seriously leaning trees, clearing with hand saws and pruners on the sides of the trails, weed-eating on the sides of the trails, removing rocks, and any further additional specific work tasks raised by visual inspection.

    [22] The latest edition of the trail map created after the initiation of this lawsuit, contains a warning that the trails are very rocky and erosion caused by mountain bike use has made the rocks increasingly prominent. Wheel tracks created by all-terrain vehicles have been observed by the Committee's witness, on that portion of the trail where the incident occurred. Ruts created by ATVs could be close to one foot in depth on some of the trails.

    [23] Leone was hospitalized for 4 days and upon his discharge was taking pain relief medication continuing into October. He suffered pain in September and October, using a cane for walking until the end of October. Dr. Freedman, Leone's doctor is of the opinion that for the first 10 days following the accident Leone would not be behaving in a normal manner. His pain was not well [*7] controlled and he was sleep deprived.

    [24] On September 7, 2004, Leone wrote to a solicitor in Meaford requesting that a title search be performed. He consulted with counsel on September 10, 2004, for the first time. On September 17, 2004, he learned that the area of land on which the accident occurred was owned by the Crown and reported this fact to his counsel. On the next working day the plaintiff's counsel wrote to the Crown by way of notice his claim.

    THE LAW

    Test for Summary Judgment

    [25] Summary judgment is granted where: (a) there is "no genuine issue for trial"; or (b) where the parties consent to having all or part of the claim determined by summary judgment and the court is satisfied that summary judgment is appropriate.

    [26] Summary judgment will only be granted where it is clear that a trial is unnecessary. To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must satisfy the court that all the requirements of Rule 20 have been met.

    [27] When hearing a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to resolve issues of fact but to determine whether genuine issues of fact exist.

    [28] On a motion for summary judgment, "the court will never assess credibility, [*8] weigh the evidence, or find the facts. Instead, the court's role is narrowly limited to assessing the threshold issue of whether a genuine issue exists as to material facts requiring a trial".

    [29] On a motion for summary judgment a court must take a "good hard look" at the merits of the action to determine whether on the materials before it there is a genuine issue with respect to a material fact regarding resolution by a trial judge.

    [30] On a summary judgment motion, a responding party is not entitled to sit back and rely on the possibility that more favourable facts may evolve at trial. To avoid summary judgment, a party is required to put its best foot forward. In particular, it is not sufficient for the responding party to say that more and better evidence will or may be available at trial. The court is entitled to assume that the record contains all of the evidence that will be presented at trial.

    [31] The moving party must do more than show that there is no genuine issue for trial. In the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the matter still cannot be decided by way of summary judgment if the respondent proves that his or he claim has a "real chance of success".

    OCCUPIERS [*9] LIABILITY ACT

    Occupiers Duty



    3(1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that person entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.

    4(1) the duty of care provided for in subsection 3(1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters on the premises, but in that case the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property.

    4(3) A person who enters premises described in subsection (4) shall be deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and is subject to the duty of care set out in subsection (1);

    (d) where the entry is for the purpose of a recreational activity and,

    (i) no fee is paid for the entry or activity of the person.

    4(4) The premises referred to in subsection (3) are,

    (a) a rural premises that is,

    (ii) vacant or undeveloped premises,

    (iii) forested or wilderness premises

    (f) recreational [*10] trails reasonably marked by notice as such.



    [32] The UTOC and Committee do not own the land upon which Leone allegedly fell. The Committee operates cross-country ski trails in the Kolapore Uplands during winter months pursuant to a land use permit issued by the MNR. The permit extends from December in each year until the following April 15.

    [33] The Kolapore trails are accessible to the public during the summer months pursuant to the Free Use policy of the MNR.

    [34] UTOC and Committee had scheduled a work day to prepare the trails for winter use. The first schedule work day was August 21, 2004.

    [35] Leone would have passed a sign upon entering the Kolapore Trails which was erected by UTOC and Committee. The wording of the sign is duplicated as follows:



    Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails for safety reasons, please:

    No dogs, no walking on trails, no snowmobiles

    Yield to skiers going downhill

    These are challenging ski trails. They are not groomed or patrolled. No facilities are available.

    Less difficult ski trails are located in the county forest section (entrance on west side at road intersection 3.7 km south)

    These trails are maintained by volunteers. Donations for [*11] materials are appreciated. For map purchase or further information write:

    Outing Club, Box 6647, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, M5W 1X4



    ISSUES

    [36] The following issues are raised on this motion:



    (i) do the premises in question constitute rural premises as described in s. 4(4)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act (the "Act"), thereby deeming the plaintiff to have willingly assumed all risks associated with entry thereon pursuant to s. 4(1) of the Act;

    (ii) are the premises in question recreational trails reasonably marked by notice as such as set out in s. 4(4)(f), thereby deeming the plaintiff to have willingly assumed all risks associated with entry thereon;



    (iii) if the answer to either of the above questions is yes, have the defendants as occupiers discharged their duty of care under s. 4(1) of the Act to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the plaintiff or his property?



    (iv) if the answer to both questions (i) and (ii) above is no, have the defendants discharged their duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Act to see that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises;

    (v) has the plaintiff complied with s. 7(3) of [*12] the Proceedings Against the Crown Act by providing notice of his claim within ten days after his claim arose.



    POSITION OF THE PARTIES

    [37] It is the position of the Crown that it acknowledges that the MNR for which the Crown is responsible, is the owner of approximately 4,900 acres of land in the Kolapore Uplands. It owns approximately eighty-eight to ninety percent of all land in Ontario and cannot supervise the condition of all of these lands. The Crown's Kolapore lands are governed by MNRs Free Use Policy, which identifies activities or uses of public land under control of the Crown which do not require land use occupation authority, permission or payment of fees under the Public Lands Act.

    [38] Among the authorized uses permitted by the Free Use Policy are "transient visitation and travel" on Ontario's public lands including activities such as hiking, boating, canoeing, cross-country skiing, water skiing, swimming, the operations of off-road vehicles (e.g. snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, bird watching, horseback riding, etc).

    [39] In response to public demand to use Crown land for recreational trails the Crown developed Policy No. LM 7.01.06 titled Authority for [*13] Recreational Trails on Crown Land ("Recreational Trails Policy").

    [40] The Recreational Trail Policy sets out guidelines for the review and approval of trails to be developed by members of the public on Crown land. The policy does not make the Crown responsible for the maintenance of the trails and in fact specifically provides that it is not responsible.

    [41] Comprehensive Management Plans can be developed for public lands such as the Kolapore Uplands for a number of reasons, including situations where there are concerns regarding potential conflicts between users of the lands, which in this case include cross-country skiers, mountain bikers, trail bikers, ATV users and horseback riders.

    [42] While the MNR is of the opinion that a Comprehensive Management Plan was required for the Kolapore Uplands the funding for its development is not available. Even in the event that a Comprehensive Management Plan had been developed, the Crown's Kolapore Lands would not have maintained the trails, inspected them or erected any signage with respect to their use.

    [43] The Crown's position is that the premises where Leone fell are rural premises and vacant or developed premises and are forested [*14] or wilderness premises. Alternatively, Leone fell in recreational trails reasonably marked as such. If any one of these factors are present then the Crown has not breached its duty and Leone must establish that the Crown created a danger with a deliberate intent of doing harm or damage or not to act in recklessness disregard to Leone. Pursuant to s. 4(1) of the Occupiers Liability Act R.S.O. 1999, c. 0.2.

    [44] The Crown argues that Leone failed to give notice pursuant to s. 7(3) of the Proceedings Against The Crown Act. This notice must be served upon the Crown within 10 days after the claim arose. An action brought against the Crown that does not confirm to the notice requirement is a nullity. It is further submitted that the discoverability principle does not apply to the Proceedings Against The Crown Act. Alternatively, a plaintiff seeking to rely on the discoverability principle based on a physical problem, mental or psychological condition must produce evidence that they were unable to communicate with a lawyer or other intermediary or to convey instructions to give the required notice.

    THE POSITION OF THE UTOC AND COMMITTEE

    [45] UTOC and Committee do not own [*15] any portion of the Kolapore Uplands. Their use is restricted to the conditions of their permit which provides as follows:



    "This permit will automatically terminate, and all rights of the permittee will expire, on the stated termination date ... This condition cannot be waived by the Crown and, if further use of the land is desired, an application for a new Land Use Permit must be submitted."



    [46] The Kolapore Trails are accessible to the public during the summer months pursuant to the "Free Use" policy of the MNR. The UTOC and Committee cannot restrict access to the Kolapore Trails during the summer months, nor can they restrict the type of activities carried on by persons entering the trails in summer.

    [47] There is no evidence that any member of the UTOC or Committee intentionally created a hazard or danger for trail users.

    [48] The UTOC and Committee rely on s. 1 of the Occupiers Liability Act, an occupier has:



    a) physical possession of the premises; or

    b) responsibility for and control over the condition of the premises or the activities carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises.

    Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. c. O.2, s. 1.

    [*16]

    [49] Alternatively, the UTOC or Committee argue that Leone fell on a "recreational trail". Leone therefore is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks of bicycling in this area. This would impose the burden of Leone establishing that these defendants acted with reckless disregard for the interest of Leone in these circumstances.

    POSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF

    [50] Leone's position is that s. 3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act R.S.O. 1960 c. 0.2 is applicable and not s. 4(1). He takes the position that the premises are not "vacant" and they are not "forested" or wilderness premises" on recreational trails pursuant to s. 4.

    [51] Alternatively, he argues that the defendants have acted in a "reckless disregard" of his presence on this property.

    [52] Respecting the issue as to whether or not the premises in question were "rural" or whether the premises were "vacant or undeveloped premises" or whether the premises were "forested or wilderness" premises, Leone refers to a letter of July 7, 1993, to the MNR from Kolapore Ski Trails Committee (at Tab 1 E of the Responding Record of the Plaintiff).



    In letter we sent in 1990, we raised initial concerns about the potential impact [*17] of mountain biking on the ski trails. Since that time, mountain biking use on the trails has dramatically increased, and has reached the point where the parking lot on Grey Road 2 is occasionally as full in the summer as it is on a winter weekend. While working on the trails, we have encountered groups of as many as 40 mountain bikers.

    The high level of bicycling use on trails which were never intended for summer use is starting to have significant detrimental effects. The use is causing erosion on slopes and is creating ruts which fill with water in moister soils. We are very concerned that if the current trend of dramatically increasing bicycling continues, portions of the trail may become unusable for skiing.



    [53] In the letter dated August 11, 2001, from Kolapore to the MNR:



    Trails Status

    "Trail use has continued to increase at the Kolapore Uplands in both summer and winter with the past winter receiving particular heavy use as a result of the excellent skiing conditions. Mountain biking, and the associated impacts, are continuing to increase. We believe that summer use of the trails is now substantially higher than winter use."



    [54] By letter dated September [*18] 21, 2001, from the MNR to Kolapore Uplands:



    "We agree with the Committee that a comprehensive management plan is required for the area that considers the needs of all users. Work is underway to establish the appropriate planning process to be followed so that all issues and concerns are fully considered. Your letter is a good start at identifying those issues."



    [55] On March 20, 2003, Kolapore wrote to MNR and stated:



    "As you are probably aware, in 2002, after years of escalating problems associated with uncontrolled camping, overnight use was finally brought under reasonable control by the prohibition of camping and overnight parking, combined with vigorous enforcement by the OPP. Unless the proposed parking lot is subject to comparable restrictions and enforcement, the original problems are likely to return and escalate. This issue should have been explicitly addressed in the project proposal, since it is a key concern to the area residents and others who are concerned about the environmental impacts in the Metcalfe Rock area."

    "In closing, we would once again encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources to initiate a comprehensive planning process for the Kolapore Uplands. [*19] With the rapid development that is occurring in the southern Georgian Bay area, use is likely to increase substantially in coming years. It would be desirable to develop a management strategy before the current issues become even more severe and irreversible damage to the environment occurs."



    [56] It is the position of Leone that although these premises may at one time have been considered "rural, vacant or undeveloped or forested or wilderness premises" pursuant to the Occupiers' Liability Act at the time of this incident August 1, 2004, the premises could no longer be described in these generic terms.

    [57] Alternatively, Leone argues that the defendants have acted with reckless disregard to the presence of him by failing to act. In other words, the decision to do nothing in the face of a statutory duty is prima facia proof of negligence. Leone argues that operational decisions to not inspect or maintain the trails can give rise to negligence.

    [58] It is Leone's position that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that statutory standards can be highly relevant to the assessment of reasonable conduct in a particular case. Further, where a statute is general or permits [*20] discretion as to the manner of performance, as is the case under s. 28, of the Public Lands Act, or where unusual circumstances exist which are not clearly within the scope of the statue, mere compliance is unlikely to exhaust the standard of care.

    [59] Leone argues that although there is nothing in the statutes or the regulations under the Provincial Parks Act, which would require the MNR to maintain or inspect trails, nor that governs the manner of their maintenance or inspection. However they have made a common-sense and practical decision to guard against hazards on public trails in provincial parks in order to met the duty of care.

    [60] Leone argues that summary judgment ought not to be granted in cases where the determination of questions of law are intertwined with questions of fact, which, in turn, will be determined by the judge's evidentiary and credibility findings.

    [61] Leone argues that the following questions of mixed fact and law are raised by the evidentiary record:



    1) Does knowing that the trails were being used during the spring and summer by various users place an obligation on the Crown or the Committee to post warning signs, or inspect or maintain [*21] the trails, and does their failure to do so constitute reckless disregard?

    2) Does such knowledge place an obligation on the Crown or the Committee to ensure that Kolapore marked the trails as required under the Occupiers' Liability Act, and does their failure to do so constitute reckless disregard?

    3) Does such knowledge place an obligation on the Crown and the Committee to ensure that the trails are inspected and maintained during the spring and summer, and does their failure to do so constitute reckless disregard?

    4) Does such knowledge place an obligation on the Crown or the Committee to extend the land use permit for a twelve month period?

    5) In the circumstances, does the Crown's failure to ensure that the trails were being maintained or inspected to any standard constitute reckless disregard?

    6) Does the explicit invitation by the Committee to have the Crown address the liability associated with trail use in the spring and summer place any obligation on the Crown to act, and does its failure to do so constitute reckless disregard?

    7) Does the Crown's failure to undertake a comprehensive management plan for the area constitute reckless disregard?

    8) [*22] Does the Crown's admission that it took no steps whatsoever to protect against harm constitute reckless disregard?

    9) Does the free use policy have any effect on the Crown's duty of care?

    10) Does Policy NO. LM7.01.06 - authority for recreational trails on Crown land - have any effect on the Crown's duty of care?

    11) Was the decision to not inspect or maintain the trails, or erect signs, an operational decision that would attract liability?

    12) Does the Public Lands Act, in granting discretion to the Crown to erect signs prohibiting, controlling or governing mountain bike use, constitute evidence of reasonable conduct that will assist the trial judge in determining whether the Crown's conduct amounted to reckless disregard?



    [62] It is Leone's position that trails at issue were not reasonably marked as recreational trails, hence, the plaintiff will not be deemed to have willingly assumed any risk by entering the trails, and therefore s. 3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act does not apply.

    PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AT: SECTION 7(3) ISSUE

    [63] It is Leone's position that although the Act requires 10 days notice "after the claim arose", Leone's injuries were [*23] sufficiently severe that he was unable to comply with this section. He argues that the discoverability rule applies to the limitations period contained within s. 7(3) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

    [64] Leone argues that the inability to satisfy the statutory notice did not prejudice the Crown. To provide notice did not interfere with the Act's other notice requirements. Leone relies on the Limitations Act 2002 S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 7, which provides, if a person entitled to bring an action is incapable of commencing a proceeding because of his or her physical, mental or psychological condition, then the limitations period does not begin to run until that person is capable of bringing the action.

    [65] Leone argues there is a genuine issue as to whether Leone was capable of bringing a claim within 10 days after being injured. Those facts constitute general issues for trial and should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

    [66] A photograph of Leone illustrating his injuries can be seen at Exhibit I to his affidavit sworn July 6, 2006. (See Responding Record of the Plaintiff, Tab 1(i)). Leone also relies on the report [*24] of his general practitioner to support this position.

    FINDINGS

    [67] I am satisfied that both the Crown and the Committee are occupiers of the lands and premises where the plaintiff allegedly fell pursuant to s. 1 of the Occupiers Liability Act. Although the Committee's permit from the MNR is specified for a period of time outside the time of the alleged fall, it has demonstrated that it has taken possession of the lands in question in summer months by preparing the trails for winter use. The signs erected by the UTOC and the Committee are not time limited and indicate a level of possession of the property at the relevant time. The definition of occupier includes "a person who has control over persons allowed to enter the premises". In the case of Moody v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto et al 31 O.R. (3d) 53, Dambrot J. held that there was a genuine issue concerning the existence of special circumstances relating to a sidewalk which was on the premises not owned by the Corporation of the City of Toronto but utilized by persons attending a sporting event almost exclusively by stadium patrons.

    [68] I am not prepared to find the fact that [*25] the Kolapore Uplands can be characterized as "vacant, undeveloped, forested or wilderness" at the time of the plaintiff's alleged fall. It is clear from correspondence between the defendants prior to this incident that the area in question had been developed into a series of trails frequented by cross-country skiers, horseback riders, ATV users, cyclists, hikers and rock climbers. This increased use by these people concerned the UTOC and the Committee sufficiently to trigger correspondence between them and the MNR. I find there is a triable issue on this important finding of fact since it attracts the potential liability of the defendants. It is clear from the evidence before me that neither the UTOC nor MNR inspected or maintained trails year round. There is no warning on this signage posted by the UTOC that users of the property are at their own risk. The wording on the sign is misleading in the sense that it could lead to a user of the premises to believe that there was some inspection performed by the volunteers of the UTOC.

    [69] In view of my conclusions, s. 3(1) of the Occupier's Liability Act would apply as opposed to s. 4.1. In analyzing the duty of care owed by the defendant [*26] to the plaintiff, it is necessary to determine whether or not the premises in question were "rural", "vacant", "undeveloped", "forested" or "wilderness" as provided for in para. 4(4) of the Occupier's Liability Act. If the premises are properly described under ss. 4 and s. 4(1) applies which provides that the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with recklessness disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property.

    [70] In analysing whether the premises were "rural", "vacant", "undeveloped", "forested" or "wilderness" premises, I have carefully reviewed the photographs of the premises, and the affidavits of Kevin Hawthorne describing the premises. In Hawthorne's affidavit sworn June 20, 2006, he deposes at paras. 28 and 29 that the premises in question were fairly flat with a gentle downhill grade. The photographs at Tab G indicate premises that appear to be rural in nature and undeveloped. In Hawthorne's affidavit sworn July 17, 2006, he deposes that approximately forty-nine hundred acres of land in the Kolapore Uplands is Crown land where the [*27] plaintiff allegedly fell. He further deposes at para. 5 that with the exception of small wooden bridges constructed by the Committee, and one house located approximately five miles from the location of the accident scene there are no man made structures.

    [71] In the letter dated July 7, 1993, written by the Committee to the MNR, the Committee expresses their concerns about the impact of mountain biking on the ski trails. They refer to the use of the trails being dramatically increased reaching the point where parking lots are filled and they have encountered groups of as many as forty mountain bikers. A further letter of August 11, 2001, repeats their concern and requests action by the MNR to develop a management strategy for this property.

    [72] Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence on this issue, I note that there is no judicial definition of the operative words "rural, "vacant" or "undeveloped" premises, "forested" or "wilderness" premises.

    [73] I find that there is a triable issue on whether or not the premises in question are "rural", "vacant", "undeveloped", "forested" or "wilderness". It is clear from the correspondence that the nature of the premises has changed [*28] over the years, prior to the plaintiff's alleged fall, which concerned the UTOC and Committee. It is a triable issue in my view to determine whether or not these premises qualify for this generic description. It therefore follows, that until that decision is determined by a Trier of Fact, the duty of care set out in s. 3(1) and s. 4(1) of the Occupier's Liability Act must be determined. I also find that the premises in question are not recreational trails reasonably marked by notice as such referred to in para. 4(f). Since I have concluded that there is a triable issue, I do not consider it necessary for me to determine whether or not the defendants have treated the plaintiff with a reckless disregard to his presence or treated him with a deliberate intent of doing harm or damage pursuant to s. 4(1).

    [74] Having read the description of the depression, where the plaintiff allegedly fell, its location, and the circumstances surrounding his alleged fall, I conclude that he has a "real chance of success" with his action.

    NOTICE OF CLAIM

    [75] The plaintiff by correspondence notified the MNR of potential clam on September 13, 2004. A formal notice was forwarded by letter date September [*29] 20, 2004. Following the plaintiff's alleged fall, he was hospitalized for a period of time. He deposes in his affidavit that because of the severity of his injuries, which appear to be supported by a photograph attached to his affidavit, he was unable to make a decision and notify the MNR within 10 days provided in s. 7(3) of the proceedings against the Crown Act. I am of the view that the discoverability rule applies to this action and therefore the limitations period may not begin to run at the time the injury occurs. Appleyard v. Ontario, [1999] O.J. No. 3940 (Gen. Div.) at paras. 12 and 15, Piexeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549 at paras. 37 and 38.

    [76] I am satisfied the plaintiff was unable to satisfy the statutory notice requirements and the delay did not prejudice the Crown, nor did the failure to provide notice interfere with the proceedings against the Crown Act other notice requirements.

    [77] For these reasons given I dismiss the motions of the defendants with costs to the plaintiff. I invite counsel to arrange a date with the trial co-ordinator at Newmarket to obtain a date to fix these costs. [*30]

    [78] I am indebted to counsel for their able arguments.

    J.H. JENKINS J.

  96. #96
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay.
    Re ATV's (and snowmobiles) the Kolapore people have been fighting a losing battle on that front for several years. Just this year it has been decided to surrendur a portion of the trail system, that has existed for some 20+ years, to the mechanized sports enthusiasts. That's right, it'll be closed and wiped off the map.
    How so?...Kolapore is a provincial conservation area managed by MNR, Owen Sound. Like other conservation areas, it's mixed use, and like Wasaga Beach Conservation Area, would allow snowmobiles on designated trails only, yet I've never seen any in there. The Wasaga trails are marked, policed, and maintained by the snowmobile association and cause very little damage or erosion. Hikers, bikers, etc. can still use them...ATV's and other mechanized vehicles are not permitted in conservation areas.

    On another note, I was speaking with a member of the MNR trail commitee who is involved with this Kolapore thing...he tells me that Lawyer Leone fell into a "warsh" and flipped...probably hit his front brake...this was a natural formation and had nothing to do with trail maintenance...the only way it could have been avoided would be to pave the trails.

  97. #97
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    that sucks

  98. #98
    yet another stupid german
    Reputation: raschaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    man, what a long, sick read that was.....writing from germany I can't believe $hit like that really goes on. here forest regulation doesn't allow bike riding on anything not wide enough for a car. it's not really enforced and puts the government off the legal hook just in case.....if I understood the "findings" right it looks kinda grim.....boy, I hope he loses.....

  99. #99

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    So tell me folks... how inactive do you feel like being now?

    Get off your asses y'all AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. GET INVOLVED. RIGHT NOW.
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-12-2007 at 10:23 AM.

  100. #100
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    So tell me folks... how friendly and inactive do you feel like being now?

    Get off your asses y'all AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. GET INVOLVED. RIGHT NOW.
    Like what?

  101. #101

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Umm.. like whatever is in your power to do? Write a letter, make a phone call, contact your local bike shop to let them know about this, contact bicycle manufacturers, or contact Kolapore and donate some money to them, I dunno.

    I'll leave it up to the individual.
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-12-2007 at 10:22 AM.

  102. #102
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Umm.. like whatever is in your power to do? Write a letter, make a phone call, contact your local bike shop to let them know about this, contact bicycle manufacturers, heck poster up the town like those other folks, contact Kolapore and donate some money to them, I dunno.

    I'll leave it up to the individual.
    It's a private civil matter between two parties...short of offering Leone a payment so that he settles, there's not much that an outsider can do.

    I've been involved in litigation, my sister is a federal judge...we both know that this is not a legal matter

  103. #103

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Oh, if only it were a private civil matter between two parties... that went out the window when it started affecting trails we care about. No man is an island.

    Put it this way: you don't do something, you lose your right to b1tch when trails get closed due to insurance costs, or things get woodchipped or paved.
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-12-2007 at 09:30 AM.

  104. #104

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Hey... anyone here a lawyer, or know what the legalities surrounding boycotts are?

    I mentioned this as someone communicated to me that folks can be sued for hurting someone's business. A number of us have stated the ideas of boycotts, and I've supported that by copying in public information.

    Now let's say the sh1t hits the fan and Mr. Leone starts suing people in this regard. Since I've advocated hitting Beard-Winter and himself where it really hurts, that is, the wallet and being able to hire new talent, exactly what kind of liability have I exposed myself to?
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-12-2007 at 10:24 AM.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    How so?...Kolapore is a provincial conservation area managed by MNR, Owen Sound. Like other conservation areas, it's mixed use, and like Wasaga Beach Conservation Area, would allow snowmobiles on designated trails only, yet I've never seen any in there. The Wasaga trails are marked, policed, and maintained by the snowmobile association and cause very little damage or erosion. Hikers, bikers, etc. can still use them...ATV's and other mechanized vehicles are not permitted in conservation areas.
    I've not personally met any mechanized users in there myself either, but I'm only there once or twice a year. Their tracks are everywhere though. The Bruce trail people recently rebuilt a bridge over Kolapore creek with a 90 degree bend in it specifically to block motorized use. Though quite safe for hikers, It's actually quite dangerous to traverse on skis now given 20 inches of packed icy snow; I haven't attempted it on my bike yet so can't comment there. Needless to say, in my opinion mechanized sports enthusiasts don't observe boundaries and/or trail designations very well. Another good example is the snowmobiler's bridge near McCrae lake which immediately introduced ATV's into the area as the snowmobilers failed to meet their obligation to the MNR upon which their bridge permit was conditional.

  106. #106
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Hey... anyone here a lawyer, or know what the legalities surrounding boycotts are?

    I mentioned this as someone communicated to me that folks can be sued for hurting someone's business. A number of us have stated the ideas of boycotts, and I've supported that by supplying additional information from the public domain.

    Now let's say the sh1t hits the fan and Mr. Leone starts suing people in this regard. Since I've advocated hitting Beard-Winter and himself where it really hurts, that is, the wallet and being able to hire new talent, exactly what kind of liability have I exposed myself to?
    I was going to say this earlier but didn't. If you keep up this crusade you will probably end up court. Let karma get him he can't sue for that.

  107. #107
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay.
    I've not personally met any mechanized users in there myself either, but I'm only there once or twice a year. Their tracks are everywhere though.
    Our issue in Wasaga are the kids that take their dirt bike and those little pocket bikes (?) illegally on the Ganaraska Hiking Trail in the provincial park...no licence, no insurance...we've had several close calls.

    MNR has 2 wardens that swing by once in a while and charge anyone they catch doing this. Too bad that they have so few resources after McGuinty took over so that can't do this full time

  108. #108

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Hair Boy
    I was going to say this earlier but didn't. If you keep up this crusade you will probably end up court. Let karma get him he can't sue for that.
    Yeah, I guess I've done my part now. I suspect I'll back off after copying in the following information from elsewhere (not my info, and I do not vouch for it's veracity):

    Leone is represented by Susan Healey, a lawyer in Barrie
    http://www.stewartesten.ca/lawyers/susan-healey.cfm

    The crown is represented by Timothy Alexander. I'm guessing this is him:
    http://www.blaney.com/lawyers_alexander.htm
    ... since his specialty is insurance and risk management.

    The University of Toronto Outing Club and Kolapore Uplands are represented by Shannon Parsons. I think this is her:
    http://www.mwpb.com/lawyers.asp?id=27

    By the way, the fact that U of T and the Crown are represented by different lawyers is significant. In the summary judgement it is clear that they are pointing fingers at each other and will throw each other under the bus if necessary.

    Please do what you can to support the UoT Outing Club and Kolapore.

  109. #109
    Looking for Adventure
    Reputation: Ricksom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,060
    Remember, none of these points are final decisions yet, just findings by the judge.
    However, it all comes back to putting up the proper signage with the proper wording and supporting it with the properly worded policies of the land.

    If you don't put up a sign saying they are not allowed, or they are entering at their own risk, the law assumes they will be coddled and taken care of even though you didn't put up a "Welcome" sign. No wonder the disclaimer business is booming......
    SUCCESS - To be able to spend life in your own way

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Please do what you can to support the UoT Outing Club and Kolapore.
    As a former member of both groups, you certainly have my appreciation for speaking out on behalf of common-sense and personal responsibility. As RA and others have noted above, an obvious safe course of action is to read through the legal transcript that was posted, carefully, and write to your local councillors/media/beaurocrats etc etc with good common-sense arguments that refute whichever "findings" and/or other legal opinions that are prejudicial to the larger trail-using community. I like the idea that this is more than just a private civil matter between two parties. My impression is that many laws are shaped by public opinion, and this case ought to be no exception.

  111. #111
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay.
    As a former member of both groups, you certainly have my appreciation for speaking out on behalf of common-sense and personal responsibility. As RA and others have noted above, an obvious safe course of action is to read through the legal transcript that was posted, carefully, and write to your local councillors/media/beaurocrats etc etc with good common-sense arguments that refute whichever "findings" and/or other legal opinions that are prejudicial to the larger trail-using community. I like the idea that this is more than just a private civil matter between two parties. My impression is that many laws are shaped by public opinion, and this case ought to be no exception.
    the laws that apply here are OK...mostly common law issues that have been in place for many years, and according to the judge, Lawyer Leone does have a winable case.

    It seems from the judgement that if the club posts signs and stops maintenance work, then this won't be a problem in the future

  112. #112

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    The laws that apply here are not OK. Anything, however well intentioned or legal, that abrogates personal responsibility should be powerfully anathema to those of us who want a better world.

    I read alot of history. I came across a wonderful account of an obscure society. Though I can't remember their name or exact location (help me out here folks), I suspect it was in ancient Greece or thereabouts. One of the guiding principles of their legal system was that the number of laws should be kept to a minimum. A bare minimum. They had a unique way of ensuring this. The individuals who proposed new laws had to think very carefully and ensure that there was complete support for their proposition, and that it pleased every single member of the decision making body. If even a single vote was cast against their proposition, they were immediately put to death.

    Now thank god we don't live back then as that's way too harsh. But it goes to show that frustrations with slow moving legal systems of byzantine complexity have bothered people for a very long time, and quite strongly at that. How a system expects to be respected, much less obeyed, when the odds are stacked against the average man are beyond me. I think we've all seen how poorly lawyers assigned by legal aid do. And I'm sure legal-aid lawyers for civil matters are even worse.

  113. #113
    @adelorenzo
    Reputation: anthony.delorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,670

    Let's sue him!

    I say we start a class-action suit against this fellow for defamation, on the grounds that he is making mountain bikers look like wussies...

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmurray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    Like what?
    Well this doesn't help for this case, but IMBA Canada has started a legal fund. A donation could be made if you feel strongly that legal support is a way you want to support your sport.
    Jason Murray
    Rep for Ontario, IMBA Canada
    Visit the IMBA Canada site to keep current on all things IMBA in Canada.

  115. #115
    Perpetual Hack
    Reputation: mykel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,129
    The "hole" was 3 feet long, 2 feet wide and 9 inches deep? Fer fvcks sake that's not a hole, thats a dip in the trail. No doubt, buddy should stick to the paved bike-path.
    Somebody better order this guy up some training wheels.

    michael

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01

    It seems from the judgement that if the club posts signs and stops maintenance work, then this won't be a problem in the future
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here? If it's black humour, it's all good! but if not.... the primary function of the managing organization has been to the maintain the trails, for winter use, these past 30 years. To discontinue maintenance is the end of the ski trails as they presently exist. Many other user groups are quite happy to use unmaintained trails, indeed probably all of the groups listed by the judge to whom the skiers owe a duty of care, but the skiers themselves are not. They actually take pride in a well-maintained trail system. There hasn't been a significant new trail built there in probably 15 years. It's all about maintenance.

    Of course if the individuals involved are financially challenged or even bankrupted by the judgement, the question of the future is moot.

  117. #117
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay.
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here? If it's black humour, it's all good! but if not.... the primary function of the managing organization has been to the maintain the trails, for winter use, these past 30 years. To discontinue maintenance is the end of the ski trails as they presently exist. Many other user groups are quite happy to use unmaintained trails, indeed probably all of the groups listed by the judge to whom the skiers owe a duty of care, but the skiers themselves are not. They actually take pride in a well-maintained trail system. There hasn't been a significant new trail built there in probably 15 years. It's all about maintenance.

    Of course if the individuals involved are financially challenged or even bankrupted by the judgement, the question of the future is moot.
    no...according to that long judgement, the reason why his case is winable is because the sign doesn't say "use at own risk" and as the club does a little trail work for skiiers, the judge ruled that their work should benefit all people they allow to use the trails.

    if they didn't maintain the trails, then it wouldn't be an issue for bikers

  118. #118
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    I think the shakiest part of that judgement is that the trails club is an occupier, even though their permit explicitly says they AREN'T during the summer months. The grounds seemed to be that they did some trail work in the fall, and because the signs aren't time-limited. I had to read that part twice to make sure I hadn't misread it completely.

    I can't see that that could possibly stand up on appeal, and the trial judge is under no obligation to respect the previous judge's opinion I don't think.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  119. #119
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I think the shakiest part of that judgement is that the trails club is an occupier, even though their permit explicitly says they AREN'T during the summer months. The grounds seemed to be that they did some trail work in the fall, and because the signs aren't time-limited. I had to read that part twice to make sure I hadn't misread it completely.

    I can't see that that could possibly stand up on appeal, and the trial judge is under no obligation to respect the previous judge's opinion I don't think.
    no, you're right...that judgement applied to the request to dismiss, the court proceedings will be much more structured and will allow testimony

    perhaps they should ask a few people who actually ride there to testify about their experiences and then ask why Lawyer Leone was there...could it have been because of the challenging trails, especially in the gultch?

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I'm finding the signage thing a little hard to get my head around. The judgement notes that Leone had ridden at Kolapore four times previously. Even though no signs were posted, he had personal first-hand knowledge of the general conditions of the trail, which is actually better information than can be conveyed by any sign. It's not as if he had unwittingly stumbled on to the trail for the FIRST time. He already knew about these trails, their condition, their nature. He deliberately and repeatedly sought them out for purposes of mountain bike riding recreation. If missing signage is the key issue, how does it relate to the passage of time over which some one repeatedly accesses and uses land? If he survived his first ride without any warning about the trails, what further warning would he need? As a knowledge personal injury lawyer, he must have understood the implications of unsigned trails... WHY DIDN'T HE CONTACT THE TRAILS ORGANIZATION AFTER THAT FIRST RIDE AND WARN THEM OF THEIR OVERSIGHT!!! It would have been a thoughtful, helpful thing to do. He could even have billed a few hundred dollars for the service, I'm sure they would have been happy to pay for the valuable advice.

  121. #121

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    WHY DIDN'T HE CONTACT THE TRAILS ORGANIZATION AFTER THAT FIRST RIDE AND WARN THEM OF THEIR OVERSIGHT

    Exactly. Here's what I don't understand... rumour has it Kolapore is his home trail system and he lives in the area. Why would someone shoot themselves in the foot like that? You'd figure one would have a vested interest in taking care of things that mean something to you, or are at least close to you. It'd be like me breaking my leg in the Don and suing the city.

    Seems like the kind of guy that would sue a friend. Now I'm starting to think it might be a setup too. Sheesh.
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-13-2007 at 01:06 PM.

  122. #122

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    I've been thinking about how we can support Kolapore some more, and dug up the following link.. says it's the official homepage for Kolapore:
    http://www.geocities.com/jonesv33/kolapore_uplands.html

    Could someone more involved with Kolapore, particularly as it concerns the lawsuit, post up and let us know how we can get money into Kolapore's hands? Is there a Paypal account or something similar via the internet that people could contribute to? Otherwise the only donation information I have is this:

    Kolapore Uplands Trails
    Box 6647, Station A
    Toronto, ON
    M5W 1X4

    I mention donations via internet specifically because alot of people know about this suit now... and if we managed to get, say, 1000 people chipping in $50 each.... I know lawyers aren't cheap but $50,000 ought to really help out for legals fees and stuff. Or even if folks just chipped in $20. Speaking for myself, next pay period I'm gonna send them $200. I don't really need that new Kris King headset.

    Bike Shops and Manufactures - you should be able to chip in even more. If you don't, shame on you. This could have an effect on your livelihood!
    Last edited by The Rear Admiral; 04-15-2007 at 06:46 AM.

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Thanks again for your continued interest RA.... yes that's the official website, I'm maintaining it, such as it is. The only contact info is the address you've listed, along with the email address: trails at kolaporeuplands dot org. Donations in the form of a cheque may be mailed, and there is also a red metal drop box at the main parking lot for spur of the moment donations. There is no paypal account as yet.

    I don't have any detailed knowledge about how the legal costs and fees are shaping up. I'm hoping they'll be covered by the insurers. Aside from this suit, the annual cost of maintaining the trails plus insurance is less than $10 K per year as I recall. Assuming the judgement in this case is favourable, that cost is likely to increase for two reasons: increased insurance premiums and increased standards on bridge construction imposed by the MNR. We're talking paid certification from a professional engineering firm. However, there's more than enough people riding there that just a few dollars donated per person, along with map sales, would certainly be enough to keep things going just fine, all provided we can get past this suit.

    Donations are the easiest way to support these trails, but if you have time to volunteer that's also highly valued. Trail work takes place in the late summer and fall, due to the presence of snow on the ground and much colder temperatures during the winter months. If I read that judgement correctly, that was one of the reasons given for evidence of summer occupancy and hence a corresponding duty of care to ATV'ers and other non-skiers. Wish that made more sense to me.

    As a final note, for anyone that lives in the area, the trails group is having their annual meeting this Saturday April 21. The details are posted on the news page of the website. It would be a great way to meet the organizers and get involved quickly, though I should add that the lawsuit per se is not on the agenda.
    Last edited by Kay.; 04-15-2007 at 09:59 AM.

  124. #124
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    I know lawyers aren't cheap but $50,000 ought to really help out for legals fees and stuff.
    no kidding...last time that I was involved in litigation, my mid-range lawyer charged $350/hr for office work, $900/hr when in court

    Plus costs for experts, photocopies, transcripts, deposititions, etc...I hit +$70,000 before stepping into a courtroom

    ...the only people that win in these things are the lawyers

  125. #125
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    I will try to make the meeting on April 21... I will be up that weekend... we are moving up there in July.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmurray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I will try to make the meeting on April 21.
    If you do make the meeting, take good notes.
    Jason Murray
    Rep for Ontario, IMBA Canada
    Visit the IMBA Canada site to keep current on all things IMBA in Canada.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by mykel
    The "hole" was 3 feet long, 2 feet wide and 9 inches deep? Fer fvcks sake that's not a hole, thats a dip in the trail. No doubt, buddy should stick to the paved bike-path.
    Somebody better order this guy up some training wheels.

    michael
    I agree with you...this hardly sounds like a massive hole that caused the accident. had it not been this gulch it could have been any other rock, root etc.

    Reading the summary judgement, it's not a good start. Realize though that all it really said was that Mr. Leone has a case that is triable, not necessarily a good one.

    My thoughts are that the fact that he crashed in a small hole, and the fact that mountian biking by definition is an assumed risk sport, the onus will be on Mr. Leone to show that someone did something blatantly wrong. I don't see how a sign would change anything, and the fact that he claims to have ridden there before on 4 occasions will hurt his argument IMHO.

    My feeling is that if this were to go to trial (which I don't think it will, I believe it will settle out of court), a jury would nail him with those facts.

    Now the question is if it settles, then for how much and I assume the insurer's will take the hit.

    If that in turn increases the policy premium, then where does that leave us as far as trail use goes?

    Was there anyhting in there that indicated the name of the family doctor (general practitioner)?
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Leone offered to settle a long time ago and the defendants refused.

  129. #129
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay.
    Leone offered to settle a long time ago and the defendants refused.
    Good for them (in this case). Insurers are taking a much tougher line with injury cases like this one recently. Sometimes it is pretty unfair but I guess every cloud has a silver lining...


    The amount that was quoted as a possible settlement figure was *very* low too...
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  130. #130

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    It's beautiful weather for riding... awesome, just awesome. Here's hoping James Leone breaks one of his legs so he can't enjoy it, and misses the riding season.

  131. #131
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    It's beautiful weather for riding... awesome, just awesome. Here's hoping James Leone breaks one of his legs so he can't enjoy it, and misses the riding season.
    yep...still snow on the hill but the XC home trails are clear

    http://www.travelistic.com/video/sho...ountain-Resort

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,025
    anyone heard anything about this?

    A friend of mine in the legal community advised that they beleived that Leone has dismissed his lawsuit.

    Can anyone confirm this?
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  133. #133

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    If that's true, then the beer is on me! *

    *Some conditions apply. Not valid in combination with any other offer

  134. #134
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by MS MSP
    anyone heard anything about this?

    A friend of mine in the legal community advised that they beleived that Leone has dismissed his lawsuit.

    Can anyone confirm this?
    sorry, it's still ongoing

  135. #135

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    Well, weather's good and biking season is here - has anyone spotted James "The Douche" Leone riding around yet?

  136. #136
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rear Admiral
    Well, weather's good and biking season is here - has anyone spotted James "The Douche" Leone riding around yet?
    that would seriously effect his damages suit...what being wounded for life and all.
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  137. #137

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    167
    That gives me a great, or pointless, idea. If we tracked this guy around, or had a PI who handles Worker's Comp fraud cases do it, maybe we could obtain some compromising photos of him. If they conflict with the nature of his alleged injuries, or extent of damage to his lifestyle, I imagine it would prove damaging.

    Through unrelated matters, I have a contact in the investigation business. They don't work for free (alas, no quick & easy matter this) and since I think James "The Douche" Leone lives out of town (near Kolapore?) this would likely entail alot of surveillance hours and $ for gas.

  138. #138
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    I don't believe the statement of claim says anything about being permanently incapacitated. It deals with the immediate aftermath of the incident.

    I hate to have to keep disagreeing with RA, who I respect a lot, but I honestly don't think that persecuting, surveilling, harrassing or otherwise interfering with Mr Leone is remotely helpful. The lawsuit will stand or fall on its own merits and MTBers should occupy the high moral ground here.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  139. #139
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    Edit -- dupe post for some reason. Nothing to see here, please move along.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I'd be curious to have a simple question answered; does he still ride off-road? Perhaps if anyone just happened to spot him by random chance out riding on trails, they could post up. Of course, if anyone did happen to encounter him, IANAL but I would advise that person to yield trail and do not, I repeat, do not make eye contact with him or distract him in any way. Under no circumstances make any verbal or sign communication of any form. If possible hold your breath and remain absolutely motionless. Retain a lawyer if necessary. If all goes well, why then just let us ordinary folks know if he still rides or not. No other details necessary, thanks. I'd be willing to bet he doesn't do much trail riding any more, probably lost interest in it.

  141. #141

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    I think that we have to ask just one question: have the trails been shut down? The answer is no. I was out there yesterday. So if the trails were going to be shut down, it would have happened already. Leone may be a goof (and I'm sure he is), but people fall all the time and get hurt. He fell years ago. The courts are dealing with it. You guys are being idiots and giving us all a bad name with your retarded tactics that achive precisely nothing. Do you really think that your "Dead or Alive" posters change anything?

  142. #142
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,298
    How is it? I rode 3 Stage yesterday which was in spectacular shape despite rain on Saturday. Bone dry and a LOT of people out.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  143. #143
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    You guys are being idiots and giving us all a bad name with your retarded tactics that achive precisely nothing. Do you really think that your "Dead or Alive" posters change anything?
    this post isn't particularly insightful or constructive either is it now?

    perhaps you'd care to lead by example...suggestions, thoughts?
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  144. #144
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    I think that we have to ask just one question: have the trails been shut down? The answer is no. I was out there yesterday. So if the trails were going to be shut down, it would have happened already. Leone may be a goof (and I'm sure he is), but people fall all the time and get hurt. He fell years ago. The courts are dealing with it. You guys are being idiots and giving us all a bad name with your retarded tactics that achive precisely nothing. Do you really think that your "Dead or Alive" posters change anything?
    I see you have 1 post. James is that you?

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Hair Boy
    I see you have 1 post. James is that you?
    Doubt it. CouchPotato registered 3 months ago ..... I don't think he'd wait this long to say only that. Speculation, but still ..... history.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies. :D

  146. #146

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    I have been following this thread off and on for a little while and I've seen posters on the trails and stuff and it seems a little over the top. I generally don't blog. I think that it's for nerds. I don't even bike all that much anymore, I work and have a family now. But anyway, we've got courts and a system of law. If you want to take the law into your own hands, take a look around the world and see how that works out. You guys come off as being insane. Especially the Rear Admiral and Kay. Contrary to what other people say, I don't "respect" you guys, I think that you're both nuts. That being said, the posters were somewhat amusing. But is still paints us all with one brush.

  147. #147
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    I have been following this thread off and on for a little while and I've seen posters on the trails and stuff and it seems a little over the top. I generally don't blog. I think that it's for nerds. I don't even bike all that much anymore, I work and have a family now. But anyway, we've got courts and a system of law. If you want to take the law into your own hands, take a look around the world and see how that works out. You guys come off as being insane. Especially the Rear Admiral and Kay. Contrary to what other people say, I don't "respect" you guys, I think that you're both nuts. That being said, the posters were somewhat amusing. But is still paints us all with one brush.
    He might come off as a little crazy at times but the Rear Admiral is keeping this thead entertaining. I love reading his posts and finding out what lawless sceem he is up to next.

  148. #148
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    pardon my summarization:
    "i dont blog because it's for nerds but i've been following it for a while..." its only nerdy when you type???
    "i dont bike much anymore..." well, what are you waiting for? ride while you can, then you will have stories to tell your children...the Leone's of the world will end this sport if this crap continues.
    "it still painting US with one brush". rest assured that based on your own description there is little to no risk of being painted by this brush.

    a few points of note. the opinions of the admiral and kay and all others on this thread represent an excellent cross-section of MTB'ing in Ontario...a little from all, the moderates and the extremes alike. sure, i question the effectiveness (and sometimes the legality) of some of the suggestions as many have questioned mine, but i see little harm in allowing an open dialog. particularly since it has the intention/goal of an amicable solution or plan of action for cyclists in Canada. their right to express these opinions and thoughts is very similar to the rights of those who choose to sue for an injury (suffered while partaking in a 'dangerous' sport).

    "we've got courts of law and a legal system" yes we do, let us not forget selfish pricks looking to make a fast buck. nor can we forget the legal expenses associated with defending such accusations and claims. last but not least let's include insurance companies that are fulling prepared to settle rather than fight such drivel to keep their IMMEDIATE costs down...we all know what happens after they settle...I pay PERSONALLY. I pay with closed trails, higher user fees, steeper insurance...in the end, I PERSONALLY make one payment on Leone's BMW.

    well mf him, and mf anyone like him that feels the gp should pay for his right to enjoy a sport that is considered risky by EVERYONE.


    so perhaps you can offer some valid an enlightening thoughts when you PERSONALLY stand to pay for the actions of one person. maybe then you will understand why this has become a personal matter with just about everyone here...and so many cyclists in North America.


    it's all about perspective couch and i would say that while you are at 30,000' its easy to be flippant.
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  149. #149

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    I'm sorry I ever said anything. Are you personally involved in this lawsuit? Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even me. So calm down. You nerd.

    Now try to digest this little bit of wisdom. I know that you're super smart and that your opinion is the only one that counts, but try to follow along with this logic.

    The only people who are paying are the taxpayers of Ontario who are paying for the defense of the lawsuit. The lawyers for the government are the ones who are racking up the fees and laughing all the way to the bank. The lawyers have a vested interest in billing this matter and will continue to do so even if they know that they'll lose in the end (which looks likely at this point). If it is true that Leone offered $20,000 to settle, you know that his lawyer would take most of it and Leone would get next to nothing and the matter would be settled and the trails would not be closed down. In other words, nothing would changes. The lawyers for the government rejected the offer. Doesn't that tell you something?

    Now go out there and try to get yourself a girlfriend.

  150. #150
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    The lawyers have a vested interest in billing this matter and will continue to do so even if they know that they'll lose in the end (which looks likely at this point). If it is true that Leone offered $20,000 to settle, you know that his lawyer would take most of it and Leone would get next to nothing and the matter would be settled and the trails would not be closed down. In other words, nothing would changes. The lawyers for the government rejected the offer. Doesn't that tell you something?
    +1...

    ...I've enjoyed the posts regarding this suit, and can't agree with you more. The plaintive here is a personal injury lawyer, only a few years out of law school, but recently won a case...just a young pup who let a win go to his head.

    Its funny how no one has remarked on how "American" this case is and how its anchored on entitlement...the plaintive has a sense of entitlement, but nothing like the bikers who posted some of the dumbest posts on this forum and others....RA wins hands down.

    One has to go to motive here....that dumb, selfish attitude that the trails belong to all, and that this case may result in them being closed.

    I had a long talk with the MNR office that manages 3-Stage (Kolapore is managed by MNR Owen Sound) who tell me that Kolapore is a conservation area where biking is neither encouraged nor discouraged, but that those that ride should ride as adults and accept responsibility for their actions.

    There's a bit of fault on both sides of this issue, the plaintive for not riding to his ability, and the defendants for not signing the trails correctly...but the bikers that post here should bend over and pull out that stick.

    Note NGH...what's up?...that last post is not up your usual high standards...isn't it too early to be into a bottle?

  151. #151
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    Note NGH...what's up?...that last post is not up your usual high standards...isn't it too early to be into a bottle?
    i think i am losing sight of the argument at this point. i am really tripping over this game of dungeons and dragons, one more roll of the 30 sided die and I become a 12th level elf with healing powers. my new tetra byte processor and projection monitor (complete with THX) really makes binary come alive!

    the UTOC is named in the suit - a not-for-profit organization. are they being represented by the crown or attorney's from their insurance company? Is it not a Toronto Law Firm, McCague Peacock Borlack McInnis & Lloyd LLP...

    only the KUWSTA is being represented by T Alexander for the Queen in Right of Ontario.

    The only people who are paying are the taxpayers of Ontario who are paying for the defense of the lawsuit. The lawyers for the government are the ones who are racking up the fees and laughing all the way to the bank. The lawyers have a vested interest in billing this matter and will continue to do so even if they know that they'll lose in the end
    Ah Ha...gotcha...say no more...i think you are frying small fish here couch, very limited audience, what you need to do is drop leaflets over the city of Toronto and environs, tell the people how the government is frivolously wasting your hard earned monies defending cases like this...taped radio broadcasts worked against the communists, try that.

    this evil government, these evil DEFENSE lawyers would they even be necessary without the case to begin with? or is your proposition that whenever there is an accusation of this nature a payout should be made? my issue here has more to do with a precedent that will be established then the specific case in itself.


    couch me thinks someone isn't being forthcoming with the true extent of their involvement here...as for the gf and nerd shots, i think you should go for the trifecta, add something really inane and sharp like 'you wanna fight' or 'i'll kick your arse'...take your time, dig down deep...what about penis size? brag about your manhood...thats pretty cool, all the ethugs are doing it.
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  152. #152
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by nogearshere
    i think i am losing sight of the argument at this point. i am really tripping over this game of dungeons and dragons, one more roll of the 30 sided die and I become a 12th level elf with healing powers. my new tetra byte processor and projection monitor (complete with THX) really makes binary come alive!

    the UTOC is named in the suit - a not-for-profit organization. are they being represented by the crown or attorney's from their insurance company? Is it not a Toronto Law Firm, McCague Peacock Borlack McInnis & Lloyd LLP...

    only the KUWSTA is being represented by T Alexander for the Queen in Right of Ontario.

    Ah Ha...gotcha...say no more...i think you are frying small fish here couch, very limited audience, what you need to do is drop leaflets over the city of Toronto and environs, tell the people how the government is frivolously wasting your hard earned monies defending cases like this...taped radio broadcasts worked against the communists, try that.

    this evil government, these evil DEFENSE lawyers would they even be necessary without the case to begin with? or is your proposition that whenever there is an accusation of this nature a payout should be made? my issue here has more to do with a precedent that will be established then the specific case in itself.


    couch me thinks someone isn't being forthcoming with the true extent of their involvement here...as for the gf and nerd shots, i think you should go for the trifecta, add something really inane and sharp like 'you wanna fight' or 'i'll kick your arse'...take your time, dig down deep...what about penis size? brag about your manhood...thats pretty cool, all the ethugs are doing it.

    welcome back...we missed you

    yep, its a mess, the plaintive is represened by a law firm out of Barrie, I think, but CP is right, only the lawyers win in these situations...I'm confident that both sides are over $100K in costs and there is still a while to go.

    Last time I was in litigation, my lawyer charged $350/hr but $900/hr when in court...plus all those extra costs (a copy of a transcript was .30/page and we killed hundreds of trees...just wait until the "expert" witness fees come in)

  153. #153
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by nogearshere
    couch me thinks someone isn't being forthcoming with the true extent of their involvement here....
    Thats what I think. My spidy sense is tingling

    Where is RA? It is unlike him to let this go unanswered.

  154. #154
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    welcome back...we missed you

    yep, its a mess, the plaintive is represented by a law firm out of Barrie, I think, but CP is right, only the lawyers win in these situations...I'm confident that both sides are over $100K in costs and there is still a while to go.

    Last time I was in litigation, my lawyer charged $350/hr but $900/hr when in court...plus all those extra costs (a copy of a transcript was .30/page and we killed hundreds of trees...just wait until the "expert" witness fees come in)
    thank you, lowest common denominator sometimes...playing to their level and all those cliches...

    i do not debate the great expense being accumulated. i do not debate the winners or the losers...i didnt even make one comment about lawyers in general, its simply not relevant. this is not a lawsuit that came into being through spontaneous litigation...someone initiated it...that someone (regardless of name) needs to be a pompous, self righteous prick. the justification for this suit, the terms and conditions surrounding it and the demands for compensation made are simply 'wack'...the whole thing smells.

    Where is RA? It is unlike him to let this go unanswered.
    despite some opinions to the contrary, it seems that RA is indeed the smartest one here...
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  155. #155
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by nogearshere
    despite some opinions to the contrary, it seems that RA is indeed the smartest one here...
    He definately has some of the most creative ways to conter atack this suit. Some of them might be a little dangerous but they they might still work. He has done a lot to bring things to the attention of the members of this site that might have gone undetected. Not to mention his entertainment value.

  156. #156

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    Hmmmm, sounds like you're the one not being forthcoming. You seem to know a lot more about this case than I ever will. Yes, I'm so involved. You got me! I post a statement that you're nuts and you prove me right. Are you working for the defense in this matter? Are you somehow connected with the defendants? An employee perhaps? A defense lawyer? Why are you so emotionally involved? Why do a couple of fun barbs provoke such a reaction? Why do you care so much? I personally don't care all that much. Maybe this blogging thing isn't for only nerds. It's fun getting a reaction out of losers like yourself.

    My penis size is great thank you very much. I'm quite good looking too with a great body. I'm 6' 3'' and weigh 200 lbs. Women find me very attractive. I'm smart and make a lot of money and drive a Lexus and live in a million dollar house. I have a beautiful wife and two wonderful sons. Jealous yet? Or do you want to go on a long walk on a beach with me and get caught in the rain? Admit it, you find me attractive.

    Paranoid wierdo.

  157. #157
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918
    My daddy can beat up your daddy

  158. #158
    Avenger of Evil
    Reputation: 1440Brad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    577
    Popcorn anyone?.
    Famous Last Words....."Hey, watch this!!"

  159. #159
    Avenger of Evil
    Reputation: 1440Brad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    577
    "issue here has more to do with a precedent that will be established then the specific case in itself." Noggs.

    I think this says it all.
    Famous Last Words....."Hey, watch this!!"

  160. #160
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    blah blah blah...I'm quite good looking too with a great body. I'm 6' 3'' and weigh 200 lbs. Women find me very attractive. I'm smart and make a lot of money and drive a Lexus and live in a million dollar house. I have a beautiful wife and two wonderful sons.
    quite the package, how ever did you get all that on your vanity plate?

    maybe one day, if i am really good, you could fart in my general direction?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  161. #161

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    I didn't realize you were into that kind of thing. You're weirder than I thought. Oh well, it takes all kinds. Tell me, do you have a problem holding down steady employment or relationships? There is help for people like you. Come on, give me a hug.

    Again, why the emotional reaction? What's your vested interest in all of this? I make a comment that the dead or alive posters are ridiculous and you lose your mind. What's your major malfunction?

  162. #162
    Looking for Adventure
    Reputation: Ricksom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,060
    This thread now needs intervention.
    I will put in a call to Gregg Kato to start deleteing and/or blocking messages.

    With all your wealth, you are obviously a very bored and unhappy man.
    SUCCESS - To be able to spend life in your own way

  163. #163
    Misfit Psycles
    Reputation: nogearshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CouchPotato
    You guys are being idiots and giving us all a bad name with your retarded tactics that achive precisely nothing. Do you really think that your "Dead or Alive" posters change anything?
    this post isn't particularly insightful or constructive either is it now?

    perhaps you'd care to lead by example...suggestions, thoughts?
    this was my reaction to your first ever post...i challenged you to contribute something other then name calling.

    despite that, the depth of your contribution entails calling people idiots, retards, nerds...suggesting adultery, therapy, career counseling and even a group hug. couch you better be a wealthy super model because smurt you urnt.



    my vested interest is quite simple. no closed trails, no increased insurance costs, no lost events and no prime-time-cable-lawsuits...i ride bikes, i make bikes. anything other then a dismissal is a LOSS for cycling in Canada.

    in closing, don't Leone this thread if you have nothing, ok?
    if you have a problem with me, i'm easy to get hold of, follow either of the links below...start your own 'look at me' thread, whatever.
    Expert of the Internet.
    BECAUSE I SAID SO

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Braids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricksom
    This thread now needs intervention.
    I will put in a call to Gregg Kato to start deleteing and/or blocking messages.

    With all your wealth, you are obviously a very bored and unhappy man.
    Try the "ignore this user option". It really works. I don't mind a little heated discourse but I understand we have a lot of delicate flowers on the internet who like to censor it for the responsible adults.

  165. #165

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    No, I recall that you lost your mind when I made an off the cuff remark that blogging was for nerds. Review the thread. I'm joking sir. My other comments have largely been responses to your messages and geared towards yanking your chain.

    But I'm also entitled to my opinion. When I was riding the Don in Toronto in the early spring, there were 'dead or alive' posters posted on trees. Anybody who is so riled up by this affair who deems it appropriate to post death threats on this blog or in print form is nuts on some level.

    Now I appreciate the fact that you make your livelihood in bikes. Fine. I don't have a problem with you. I was yanking your chain and you have overreacted. So what. Move on. I'm sure that you're a great guy who I could easily share a beer and laugh with.

    I don't support frivolous lawsuits. However, in light of the case not being thrown out, the danger becomes the setting of a negative precedent. The case does not appear to be frivolous at law. Again, I stand by my position that the lawyers will be the only winners.

    Third party actions will have no effect at all on the outcome of the litigation. Putting up posters only make the proponents of mountain biking look ridiculous. So what can bikers do? In a civil society, nothing. It's in the courts.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.