The plaintiff struck a log while riding his motorcycle on a service road
The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that the province is not immune from liability for a motorcycle accident because its immunity does not extend to the forest service road where the accident occurred.
The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on the Canoe West Forest Service Road when he struck a log. He filed a civil claim seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by the province's failure to maintain the road safely.
The province, which owns the road, argued that at the time of the accident, Valemount Forest Products Ltd. held a road use permit and was responsible for maintenance. However, Valemount Forest claimed that the road was not being used for logging and that the province was responsible for its maintenance.
The province applied for summary judgment, arguing that s. 24(3) of the Industrial Roads Act granted it complete immunity from liability. The chambers judge agreed, ruling that the statutory immunity applied broadly to all roads, not just industrial roads, and dismissed the claim against the province.
On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the chambers judge erred by misinterpreting s. 24(3). He argued that the term "road" in the provision should be read in context, meaning only "industrial road" as defined by the statute. Since the Forest Act classified the Canoe West Forest Service Road as a forest service road, it expressly excluded it from the definition of an industrial road.
The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge had taken an overly literal approach by interpreting the term "road" in isolation. The appellate court emphasized that statutory interpretation requires consideration of the legislation's text, context, and purpose.
The court highlighted that s. 24(3) must be read in conjunction with s. 24(1) and 24(2), which explicitly concern industrial roads and industrial road administrators. Given this context, the reference to "road" in s. 24(3) logically pertains only to industrial roads. The court also noted that the heading of s. 24—"Liability of Industrial Road Operator"—reinforced this interpretation.
Furthermore, the court examined the legislative history of the immunity provision, which originated in 1963 to address liability concerns of industrial operators, particularly in the forestry sector. Over time, statutory amendments have refined the scope of industrial roads, including the 2004 change that explicitly excluded forest service roads from the definition of industrial roads. The court found no evidence that the legislature intended to extend the immunity to all private roads in British Columbia.
The appellate court also considered the broader legal framework, particularly the Occupiers Liability Act, which imposes a general duty of care on those responsible for private roads, driveways, and parking lots. The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge's interpretation would have created a sweeping immunity that contradicted the principles of occupiers' liability, an outcome unlikely to have been intended by the legislature.
The Court of Appeal concluded that s. 24(3) of the Industrial Roads Act applies only to industrial roads. Since the Canoe West Forest Service Road did not qualify as an industrial road, the province was not immune from liability under this provision. The court allowed the appeal, reversing the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the province. The case will proceed to trial to determine liability for the plaintiff's injuries.
