Supreme Court Overturns Nova Scotia "Back Woods" Travel Ba As "Unconstitutiona" - TOLD YOU SO!!!! 😁

[CdnFox]

 

You guys may recall the last year Nova Scotia enacted a travel ban into his backcountry because of fire risk. I said at the time that it was probably not constitutional and was a gross over reaction and severely inappropriate.

Those on the left rushed to defend the action stating that we have no right to go on to public land or into the backcountry and the government could do what it's wants and if a bunch of rednecks had to stay home and stay out of the woods too damn bad.

Well, as is off in the case it turns out I was quite correct and the courts agree that the reaction was grossly disproportional and unconstitutional

We will see if they appeal but that behavior was never okay.

 

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia struck down the province’s August 2025 "woods travel ban" on April 17, 2026. The court ruled that the government acted unreasonably and failed to consider the Charter rights of Nova Scotians when it prohibited entry into nearly 80% of the province’s land during a period of high wildfire risk. 

CTV News +2

 

Key Findings of the Ruling

• Lack of Charter Consideration: The court found no evidence that the Minister of Natural Resources considered Section 6 mobility rights or Section 7 liberty rights before issuing the blanket proclamation.
• Unconstitutional Process: While recognizing that governments can act in emergencies, the court held that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed because it did not balance the ban’s impact on residents' rights with its public safety objectives.
• Arbitrary Nature: Evidence highlighted that the ban prohibited low-risk activities like hiking while allowing high-risk industrial activities (e.g., forestry and mining) to continue under permits, which the challengers argued was irrational and arbitrary. 
  Canadian Constitution Foundation +4

 

Background of the Case

• The Proclamation: Issued on August 5, 2025, by Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton, the ban prohibited travel in all woods—including private land—to prevent wildfires during a historic drought.
• Heavy Fines: Violations carried a maximum penalty of up to $25,000 (plus fees) or six months in prison.
• The Challengers: The case was brought by Jeffrey Evely, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran with PTSD who deliberately walked into the woods to receive a fine ($28,872.50) so he could challenge the law. He was supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF). 

Edited April 17 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

While recognizing that governments can act in emergencies...

Which is the fundamental point anyone was making.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

• the court held that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed because it did not balance the ban’s impact on residents' rights with its public safety objectives.
• Arbitrary Nature: Evidence highlighted that the ban prohibited low-risk activities like hiking while allowing high-risk industrial activities (e.g., forestry and mining) to continue under permits, which the challengers argued was irrational and arbitrary. 

Makes sense. Next time they'll just have to ban it all.

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Which is the fundamental point anyone was making.

Makes sense. Next time they'll just have to ban it all.

Notwithstanding clause?

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Notwithstanding clause?

There'll always be something.

[suds]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Notwithstanding clause?

The notwithstanding clause can't be applied to mobility rights.  The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was able to overturn the travel ban by using Section 1 of the Charter and deciding the ban was unreasonable and arbitrary. Approve of Section 1 or not, it certainly demonstrates its usefulness in cases such as this.

Edited April 18 by suds

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Which is the fundamental point anyone was making.

 

No it wasn't, and the problem with that whole line of thinking is that the governments have taken recently, especially left-wing ones but not exclusively, did you simply declaring any old situation in emergency and claiming that gives them license to commit any action

As we see here that was not the case

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Makes sense. Next time they'll just have to ban it all.

LOLahhh you.  Always the totalitarian dictator you  

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No it wasn't, and the problem with that whole line of thinking is that the governments have taken recently, especially left-wing ones but not exclusively,

All governments everywhere are committed to maintaining a certain level of heightened threat level these days. There's a color coded matrix of triggers for everything from terrorism to wildfires and waves on public beaches.

The Fraser Institute probably even has them for tax regimes and we've all seen what rainbows do to you people.

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOLahhh you.  Always the totalitarian dictator you

It's pretty clear that's what the court ruling was suggesting when it discussed the arbitrariness of the ban. 

The woods are shut down and camp fire bans are common hereabouts due to hot dry conditions. I don't recall them not occuring together the last few years, not since they got rid of the Fog Zone designation that allowed camp fires within a couple of kms of the shoreline. They took that away too though.

It sucks that everything needs to be brought down to the lowest common dummy but there's just so many dummies now it's almost an emergency.  Which brings us back to the point of supporting governments acting in the case of one on occassion.

Edited April 18 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All governments everywhere are committed to maintaining a certain level of heightened threat level these days.

What does that even mean. Are you practicing for that interview at the fortune cookie shop?

Governments since there were governments I've been expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate risk in a fashion that isn't excessive or authoritarian. This crossed that line

And yes I'm well aware of the new 'Yellow snow" alerts we got this winter, and someone at the gov't needs to be punched in the nose. 

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's pretty clear that's what the court ruling was suggesting when it discussed the arbitrariness of the ban. 

I think that might be more of a you thing rather than a general public would see it that way thing

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The woods are shut down and camp fire bans are common hereabouts due to hot dry conditions.

Very localized bands for very short periods of time and are very severe conditions. Or if there's an act of fire in the area and they're worried about people being trapped or that it might shift.

But there has never been a summer long ban on all of the back roads in British Columbia and you're well aware of that

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What does that even mean.

Fùck off, you know exactly what it means.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yes I'm well aware of the new 'Yellow snow" alerts we got this winter, and someone at the gov't needs to be punched in the nose. 

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think that might be more of a you thing rather than a general public would see it that way thing

Yeah? I blame the general public's increasing stupidity on you people who think you know everything.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Very localized bands for very short periods of time and are very severe conditions. Or if there's an act of fire in the area and they're worried about people being trapped or that it might shift.

But there has never been a summer long ban on all of the back roads in British Columbia and you're well aware of that

And yet they've done away with a biogeoclimatic designation that lowers thousands of people to the same common level of dummies everywhere. It can be soaking wet and only 17-18 degrees but no fires allowed.

[Barquentine]

So what's next? Is the Provincial daily burn ban unconstitutional? Do away with the Fire Code for buildings? Is there no instance when the greater good is more important than individual rights? Get ready fore more droughts and more fires. Just pray that your house isn't one of those burned. Selfishness prevails.

And the court said it wasn't that they did it. It was how they did it.

All this ruling means is that next time the Gov't will do a better job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

Edited April 18 by Barquentine
adding text

[suds]

13 hours ago, Barquentine said:

So what's next? Is the Provincial daily burn ban unconstitutional? Do away with the Fire Code for buildings? Is there no instance when the greater good is more important than individual rights? Get ready fore more droughts and more fires. Just pray that your house isn't one of those burned. Selfishness prevails.

And the court said it wasn't that they did it. It was how they did it.

All this ruling means is that next time the Gov't will do a better job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

They say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. There is this thing called the 'Oakes Test' that our courts use to determine if a government's actions involving limitations on certain Charter rights is reasonable or not. Maybe those in government should bear that in mind, or maybe they did and there was just disagreement. Politicians often tend to do things that defy logic for political reasons. Personally, I believe our system works fairly well.

[CdnFox]

On 4/17/2026 at 10:06 PM, eyeball said:

Fùck off, you know exactly what it means.

It means you're drinking on the weekend again doesn't it  

 

Quote

Yeah? I blame the general public's increasing stupidity on you people who think you know everything.

well god knows you need to blame SOMEONE other than yourself for your stupidity. 

 

Quote

And yet they've done away with a biogeoclimatic designation that lowers thousands of people to the same common level of dummies everywhere. It can be soaking wet and only 17-18 degrees but no fires allowed.

No open fires, and sure that's frustrating but that's already stretching the boundaries of what they should be allowed to do.  Saying 'nobody is allowed to use the land at all" is just not reasonable 

Oh and it's always cute when you try your best to sound smart    LOL

Edited April 19 by CdnFox

[Venandi]

On 4/18/2026 at 2:06 AM, eyeball said:

Fùck off, you know exactly what it means.

Here's what it means to me.

The government knew full well what they were doing as they were doing it, and they knew they would lose if/when challenged.

They knew and they didn't care, the police knew and they didn't care as they enforced it too.

Here's the thing that bugs me about it.... the reason they didn't care was due to the to the time and expense it takes to correct obvious unconstitutional laws and get justice in the form of a court ruling. The proof of that is the amount of the fine... it was deliberately set to deter individuals from seeking justice.

The first step is always saying:

On 4/18/2026 at 2:06 AM, eyeball said:

Fùck off

and having the parts it takes to get charged and mount a defence. The government does this knowingly and regardless of political persuasion people should be offended by it because pretty soon, everything is going to be framed as an emergency.

I've noticed a few here don't like it when Trump does that... as usual, my question is WTF did you think was going to happen? 

 

 

The case was brought on behalf of Jeffrey Evely, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran who was fined $28,872.50 after walking in the woods during the ban. Lawyers challenging the measure were funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

In its decision, the court found there was no evidence the minister considered mobility rights before issuing the proclamation. The judge wrote that governments may respond to emergencies, but must still weigh the impact of their decisions on constitutionally protected freedoms.

Most arguments in favour of this stuff fail to address the "creep" of unintended consequences or even attempt to discern where something they currently support will eventually lead. The examples are legion, here's an off topic CNN article about high potency marijuanna to illustrate what I mean... this was predicted; let's not pretend it wasn't, and, since it's CNN it has to be true.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/20/health/marijuana-potency-wellness

Edited April 20 by Venandi

[CDN1]

On 4/18/2026 at 7:49 AM, Barquentine said:

So what's next? Is the Provincial daily burn ban unconstitutional? Do away with the Fire Code for buildings? Is there no instance when the greater good is more important than individual rights? Get ready fore more droughts and more fires. Just pray that your house isn't one of those burned. Selfishness prevails.

And the court said it wasn't that they did it. It was how they did it.

All this ruling means is that next time the Gov't will do a better job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

This is coming from the same people who opened the borders without proper vetting, enabled reckless third world demographic change while pushing soft on crime legislation which allows violent repeat offenders to be released over and over.

They dgaf about public safety so please gtfoh with the gaslighting bs.

Edited April 20 by CDN1

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, CDN1 said:

This is coming from the same people who opened the borders without proper vetting, enabled reckless third world demographic change while pushing soft on crime legislation which allows violent repeat offenders to be released over and over.

They dgaf about public safety so please gtfoh with the gaslighting bs.

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was responsible for Canadian immigration policy and crime legislation?  I don't think so...

[Venandi]

On 4/18/2026 at 9:49 AM, Barquentine said:

Is the Provincial daily burn ban unconstitutional?

Is there a Canadian right to start bonfires that's on par with mobility rights?

On 4/18/2026 at 9:49 AM, Barquentine said:

Do away with the Fire Code for buildings?

Do fire and building code requirements prevent people from building houses? 

 

On 4/18/2026 at 9:49 AM, Barquentine said:

All this ruling means is that next time the Gov't will do a better job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

They didn't forget that part IMO, it was omitted.... they knew this would be struck down and it's an easy do-over for next time.

More is coming and it will eventually impinge on something that affects you...  in the meantime, creep has already been established with earlier burn restriction dates. 

18 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was responsible for Canadian immigration policy and crime legislation?  I don't think so...

OK... now you're doing it on purpose. He was talking about liberal voters, might be a few of them in NS eh?

Edited April 20 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

OK... now you're doing it on purpose. He was talking about liberal voters, might be a few of them in NS eh?

He was talking about the liberal government, eh

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, CDN1 said:

This is coming from the same people who opened the borders without proper vetting, enabled reckless third world demographic change while pushing soft on crime legislation which allows violent repeat offenders to be released over and over.

4 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was responsible for Canadian immigration policy and crime legislation?  I don't think so...

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

He was talking about liberal voters, might be a few of them in NS eh?

57 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

He was talking about the liberal government, eh

I'm not going to put words in someone else's mouth but yes, he was talking about a liberal government, elected by liberal voters and maybe even implying that you can't swing a dead cat in Nova Scotia without hitting a liberal voter in the teeth with it. 

What (I think) he wasn't suggesting is that the NS Supreme Court is responsible for the national immigration debacle. 

eh?

Edited April 20 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

I'm not going to put words in someone else's mouth but yes, he was talking about a liberal government, elected by liberal voters and maybe even implying that you can't swing a dead cat in Nova Scotia without hitting a liberal voter in the teeth with it. 

What (I think) he wasn't suggesting is that the NS Supreme Court is responsible for the national immigration debacle. 

eh?

Sure, go with that one... eh 👍

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Venandi said:

Here's the thing that bugs me about it.... the reason they didn't care was due to the to the time and expense it takes to correct obvious unconstitutional laws and get justice in the form of a court ruling. The proof of that is the amount of the fine... it was deliberately set to deter individuals from seeking justice.

So it was an emergency and they didn't have time to be gentle about it.

But despite having plenty of time in hindsight you come up with some cockamamie notion the government availed themselves with the opportunity to make itself more authoritarian.

I think governments have a certain natural urge to be over cautious but it's more like being a helicopter parent than a dictator.

11 hours ago, Venandi said:

The first step is always saying: Fùck off

I was telling Numbnuts to stop being disingenuous. And on that note you can too.

The ruling didn't say a thing about the justification for the ban simply that its implementation was arbitrary and irrational.

It certainly didn't say governments can use any old excuse they like to justify emergency powers so they can become more powerful.

Thankfully the system works because it's self-correcting this way.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

  11 hours ago, Venandi said:

The first step is always saying: Fùck off

How did your obnoxious post suddenly become attributable to me?

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I was telling Numbnuts to stop being disingenuous. And on that note you can too.

Were you talking to the mirror here?

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

...its implementation was arbitrary and irrational.

And assuming you concur with the court it's a step in the right direction.

Arbitrary and irrational isn't a mistake, it's a stepping stone that suggests the

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

...government availed themselves with the opportunity to make itself more authoritarian.

The fact that the court had to point this out to you is telling.

Edited April 20 by Venandi

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Venandi said:

How did your obnoxious post suddenly become attributable to me?

Because you started down the same road Numbnuts did, you attributed a bunch of nonsensical hooey to the government's motivations.

32 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Were you talking to the mirror here?

I'm not, I'm talking to to you.

32 minutes ago, Venandi said:

And assuming you concur with the court it's a step in the right direction.

Arbitrary and irrational isn't a mistake, it's a stepping stone

LMAO! There you go again.

33 minutes ago, Venandi said:

The fact that the court had to point this out to you is telling.

It's you trying to tell me the government is doing this. The court said the government can't be arbitrary or irrational when it comes to suspending people's rights. Its saying come up with more focussed rational justifications. I'm surprised you're not reading something even more insidious into that - activist left-wing courts telling the government it needs more ironclad justifications for becoming authoritarian.

And the Theremin played on...

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

So it was an emergency and they didn't have time to be gentle about it.

 

But it wasn't. And that's what the court ruled

Lefties are absolutely famous for this little trick where if they want to do anything they first declared an emergency and use that as an excuse to violate people's rights.

This is yet another example.

When those on the rights learn this little trick such as trump has done with his tariffs the left gets all sad and cry baby about it.

Emergency or not people's rights still matter and more and more you're going to find this little trick turned against you if you guys keep it up

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Emergency or not people's rights still matter

Yup.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When those on the rights learn this little trick such as trump has done with his tariffs the left gets all sad and cry baby about it.

It looks like they get more angry and patriotic than anything. OTOH the whole thing seems to be a source of shits and giggles that's oddly peculiar to you.

 

 

[Venandi]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Emergency or not people's rights still matter and more and more you're going to find this little trick turned against you

Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore said the ruling confirms that governments must respect fundamental freedoms, even during emergencies. “Justice Campbell appropriately warns in his decision that if the rights of individuals are not safeguarded in emergency circumstances, ‘…they can be eroded in a way that eventually affects everyone.  Experience tells us that the erosion can happen in unexpected places at an unexpected pace.’”

https://www.jccf.ca/supreme-court-of-nova-scotia-strikes-down-provinces-woods-ban-as-unconstitutional/