Justice Jamie Campbell rules Nova Scotia woods ban violates charter rights
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Apr 25
Justice Jamie Campbell rules Nova Scotia woods ban violates charter rights
11 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Apr 25
On 17 April, Justice Campbell found the emergency ban, which carried fines up to C$28,872.50, unconstitutionally vague and in breach of Nova Scotians' mobility rights.
The court criticized the government for prioritizing industry exemptions and failing to reasonably balance public safety with individual freedoms during the 2023 wildfire crisis.
The decision, celebrated by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and challenger Jeffrey Evely, is expected to deter similar restrictive measures and highlights ongoing debates over government overreach and civil liberties in Canada.
After its 'woods ban' was struck down, how will Nova Scotia fight wildfires now?
A court called an emergency order unconstitutional. What does this mean for your rights?
How do you write an emergency law that stops fires but respects constitutional rights?
Is Nova Scotia fighting wildfires with one hand while fueling them with the other?
Why did a veteran with PTSD deliberately break the law to challenge the government?
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Strikes Down 2025 Woods Access Ban for Violating Charter Mobility Rights
Overview
In response to devastating wildfires in 2023 that exposed serious weaknesses in emergency preparedness, Nova Scotia launched reforms to improve firefighting and response plans. In 2025, facing extreme drought and high wildfire risk, the government imposed a strict provincewide ban on public access to wooded areas to prevent fires. Jeffrey Evely challenged this ban after being fined, arguing it violated constitutional mobility rights. In April 2026, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled the expired ban unconstitutional due to vagueness and overreach, invalidating fines and setting a precedent that future emergency measures must be clearly defined, justified, and respect individual rights. The ruling was widely praised by civil liberties groups and acknowledged by the government.