Key Takeaways
- Nova Scotia imposed a sweeping “stay out of the woods” ban during the 2023 wildfire season, defining “woods” so broadly that even treeless barrens and marshes were included.
- Violators faced fines up to C$25,000 (over half the average worker’s annual salary), exemplified by the C$28,872.50 penalty issued to army veteran Jeffrey Evely.
- Evely, backed by the libertarian Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), challenged the fine on the grounds that the order violated mobility rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- Justice Jamie Campbell ruled the ban unconstitutional, citing its vagueness, failure to balance individual rights against public safety, and preferential treatment of industry permits.
- Premier Tim Houston defended the measure as a necessary, emergency response, while the judge warned that rights can be eroded if not safeguarded even in crises.
- The decision reinforces the principle that emergency powers must be reasonable, clear, and proportionate, and may deter similar overreaching restrictions in future public‑safety actions.
Background and the Wildfire Crisis
In the summer of 2023, Nova Scotia experienced an unprecedented surge of wildfires that threatened communities, infrastructure, and natural resources across the province. As flames spread, the government under Premier Tim Houston sought immediate measures to limit human activity in forested areas, hoping to reduce ignition sources and aid firefighting efforts. The provincial leadership framed the restriction as an inconvenient but essential step to prevent a repeat of the devastating 2022 fire season, emphasizing public safety and protection of property as the primary motivations behind the forthcoming order.
The “Stay Out of the Woods” Order
The resulting directive prohibited anyone from entering “the woods,” a term deliberately left ambiguous by the government. According to the order’s interpretation, “woods” encompassed not only traditional forest stands but also rock barrens, scrubland, marshes, and any land where trees had once been present, regardless of current vegetation. Residents were allowed to move as long as they did not travel “any great distance” through these designated areas, forcing individuals to engage in subjective interpretation of what constituted a prohibited zone. The breadth of the definition left many hikers, hunters, and ordinary citizens uncertain about where they could legally go.
Enforcement and Financial Penalties
To enforce the ban, authorities imposed steep fines: a base penalty of C$25,000 for anyone caught hiking under the forest canopy, with additional fees potentially raising the total to nearly C$29,000, as in the case of Jeffrey Evely. This amount exceeded half the average annual salary of a Nova Scotia worker, turning a simple recreational activity into a potentially ruinous financial risk. The high monetary stake underscored the government’s intent to deter non‑compliance through economic disincentives rather than purely educational outreach.
Jeffrey Evely’s Challenge
Jeffrey Evely, an army veteran residing in Cape Breton, deliberately tested the ban after notifying bylaw officers of his intention to enter a forested area. Upon doing so, he was issued a C$28,872.50 fine, prompting him to seek legal redress. Evely secured representation from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a libertarian‑leaning organization known for challenging perceived government overreach, including its involvement in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests. The JCCF framed the case as a defence of fundamental mobility rights and a check on emergent authoritarian tendencies during emergencies.
Legal Arguments and Judicial Review
At trial, Evely’s counsel argued that the order violated Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees mobility rights—the freedom to move within and between provinces. They contended that the government had failed to demonstrate a reasonable balance between the infringement on those rights and the purported benefit of wildfire prevention. Moreover, they highlighted the order’s excessive vagueness, asserting that a law so unclear could not be fairly applied or obeyed, thereby undermining the rule of law.
Justice Campbell’s Ruling
Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court upheld Evely’s challenge, ruling that the ban constituted an unjustified limitation on mobility rights. In his judgment, Campbell emphasized three critical flaws: (1) the order’s failure to weigh the severity of the rights intrusion against the urgency of the wildfire threat; (2) the lack of reasonable, proportionate measures tailored to the actual risk; and (3) the indefinable nature of the term “woods,” which rendered the directive incapable of consistent interpretation. While acknowledging the government’s imperative to act swiftly during a crisis, Campbell warned that rights could be eroded incrementally if exceptions became normalized, ultimately affecting all citizens.
Government and Industry Response
Premier Tim Houston maintained that the ban was a necessary, emergency‑driven action aimed at protecting firefighters, residents, and property, insisting that his decision was appropriate given the information and pressures at the time. Notably, while the public faced restrictive fines, the province continued to issue permits to industry groups—including forest operators, utilities, and telecom companies—allowing them to operate within the same wooded zones. This disparity reinforced perceptions that the measure served economic interests more than blanket public safety, a point highlighted by the judge’s criticism of preferential treatment.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
Marty Moore, legal counsel for the JCCF, characterized the ruling as “egg on the face of the government,” suggesting it would deter authorities from enacting similarly vague, sweeping restrictions in future emergencies. He linked the case to a longer historical lineage of forest rights, referencing the Magna Carta and the 1271 Charter of the Forest, which affirmed common people’s access to woodland resources. Moore argued that unless citizens directly experience the Nova Scotian landscape—where the woods are integral to identity and livelihood—they may struggle to grasp how a seemingly abstract legal definition can impinge on daily life. The decision thus serves as a cautionary tale about the need for clear, rights‑respecting language in emergency legislation, balancing collective safety with the preservation of fundamental freedoms.