Nova Scotia hiking ban struck down
- A court ruling declared a local 'hiking ban' unconstitutional after a hiker was fined $28,000 for walking in the woods. (x.com) - The case and video breakdown were widely shared on X, driving public debate about access and fines. (x.com) - The decision could affect how provinces enforce trail closures and private-land restrictions going forward. (x.com)
A Nova Scotia judge has ruled the province’s 2025 ban on entering “the woods” was unreasonable after officials failed to consider Charter rights. (theccf.ca) Justice Jamie S. Campbell released the decision on April 17, 2026, in *Evely v. Nova Scotia (Minister), 2026 NSSC 118*, after a March 17-19 hearing in Halifax. The case challenged an Aug. 5, 2025 proclamation that barred people from entering wooded areas across all Nova Scotia counties without a permit. (theccf.ca) The challenge grew out of a $28,872.50 ticket issued to Jeffrey Evely of Coxheath after he deliberately walked into the woods near Sydney in August 2025 and recorded the encounter. The base fine was $25,000 under the Forests Act, with tax and a victim surcharge added on top. (cbc.ca) Campbell wrote that the ban “substantially affected peoples’ lives” and limited mobility rights protected by Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He found the government created a permit system for commercial users but gave no comparable consideration to people using the woods for hiking, fishing, camping, picnicking, or other non-commercial purposes. (globalnews.ca) The ruling did not say Nova Scotia lacked a wildfire problem in summer 2025. Campbell wrote that the case was not about whether the government faced a crisis, but whether the minister had legal authority for a provincewide travel ban and followed the right process in imposing it. (theccf.ca) That distinction matters because the order reached far beyond campfires or off-road vehicles. The 2025 proclamation blocked entry into wooded areas for travel, camping, fishing, and picnicking “or any other purpose,” and remained in place until Oct. 15, 2025, or until conditions improved. (cbc.ca) Nova Scotia defended the restrictions as a response to extreme drought and wildfire risk during a season when homes were lost, evacuations were ordered, and firefighting resources were stretched. Campbell wrote that urgency can make rights analysis harder, but said the record showed no evidence officials meaningfully weighed those rights when the order was made. (theccf.ca; globalnews.ca) The court did not formally “strike down” the ban in the sense of cancelling an active order, because the proclamation had already expired by the time of judgment. Instead, the decision sets out why the 2025 order was unlawful and gives Nova Scotia a roadmap for any future emergency restrictions on public access to woods and trails. (globalnews.ca; theccf.ca) Evely had challenged an earlier woods restriction before this case, and CBC reported that earlier litigation helped prompt his deliberate test of the 2025 order. The new ruling closes that test case with a warning from the court: emergency powers still have to show their work. (cbc.ca; theccf.ca)
