Nova Scotia Supreme Court Invalidates Province-Wide Woods Ban for Failure to Consider Charter Rights
Introduction
In April 2026, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that a province-wide ban on entering woods imposed by the provincial government in August 2025 was unreasonable and contravened constitutional mobility rights. The decision resulted from a legal challenge by a resident who was fined for violating the ban.
Main Body
The ban was promulgated on August 5, 2025, during a period of extreme drought and elevated wildfire risk. It prohibited entry into wooded areas for purposes such as travel, camping, fishing, and picnicking, unless a valid permit was held. The restriction was lifted in phases beginning August 29, 2025. Shortly after the ban was enacted, the Long Lake wildfire commenced on August 13, ultimately consuming approximately 8,500 hectares and destroying 20 residential structures. Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court adjudicated that the ban constituted a substantial restriction on mobility, not a fleeting or insignificant limitation. The court determined that the government had failed to consider the implications of Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects mobility rights. The ruling also noted that the definition of “woods” under the Forests Act was unacceptably vague, encompassing areas such as bogs, muskeg, and rock barrens where trees were absent. The court found no evidence that government officials had assessed Charter implications prior to imposing the ban, contrary to requirements established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor v. Newfoundland and Labrador (2026 SCC 5). Premier Tim Houston expressed respect for the judicial decision but maintained that the ban was a necessary measure to protect public safety and firefighting personnel during an emergency. He stated that the province would not appeal the ruling but would adopt similar measures if circumstances warranted. NDP Leader Claudia Chender acknowledged the government’s need to act during an unprecedented situation but asserted that the administration had failed to properly identify the issues and formulate an appropriate response. Jeffrey Evely, the individual who received a fine of $28,872.50 for deliberately violating the ban, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision. His legal challenge was funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Constitutional law expert Wayne MacKay characterized the government’s omission of Charter considerations as alarming. Evely’s attorney, Marty Moore, emphasized that governments must incorporate constitutional analysis as a fundamental step when issuing broad societal orders. The court’s ruling does not preclude future woods bans, provided they are implemented with due regard for Charter rights. The judgment noted a compelling argument that the ban was so vague as to be incapable of interpretation, which engages Section 7 rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, although this section was not expressly applied. The fine imposed on Evely is expected to be invalidated as a consequence of the ruling.
Conclusion
The court’s decision reinforces the principle that emergency measures must be balanced against constitutional protections. It establishes a precedent requiring governments to explicitly consider Charter rights when enacting broad restrictions, even under urgent conditions.