Mr. R.A. Freeman October 13, 1981

if the City purchased the bridge from the Province
under the terms and conditions of the proposed
agreement, the City would not be in a position to
regulate the use of the bridge if the regulations
in any way impaired the right of the general public
to free passage over the bridge;

the City may want to regulate the use of the bridge
to prevent the use of bicycles, motorcycles or other
conveyances on it and to control litter, loitering

Or other matters.

It is interesting to note that in section 2(d) the proposed
agreement refers to "the transfer of the Bridge to the Minister..."
when it is the intention of the Province to transfer the Bridge from

the Minister to the City.

lil. CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our comments, are as follows:

1.

Section 2(d) of the proposed agreement is most likely
not binding upon the City because the City has not
enacted an enabling bylaw or a resolution or executed

the agreement;

the City is entitled to the possession and use of the
bridge and may maintain it in the same manner it maintains

other highways;

in so maintaining the bridge, the City is subject to
the doctrines of nonfeasance and misfeasance -- giving
the Province the indemnification under section 2(d) (i)
would remove the potential for any person proceeding
against the Province in the event of Personal injury

or Other loss;

Section 2(d) (ii) is ambiguous in its current form but
may be construed to prevent the City from enacting
regulations, prohibiting the use of bicycles, motor-
cycles or other conveyances on the bridge. .

ee f5