A Nova Scotia judge ruled that a provincewide ban on entering the woods during an extreme drought was unreasonable and struck the measure down [1].

The ruling establishes a legal boundary for how provincial governments can restrict public access to natural lands during environmental emergencies. It highlights the tension between public safety mandates and individual constitutional freedoms during climate-driven crises.

The court proceedings took place in Halifax, where the province's highest trial court examined the legality of the restrictions [1]. The ban was originally imposed during the summer of 2025 [2] as a response to extreme drought conditions that had increased the risk of wildfires [1].

According to the court, the ban unduly limited mobility rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1]. The judge said that the blanket prohibition on entering the woods was an unreasonable response to the wildfire risk [3].

While the government sought to prevent catastrophic fires, the court found the measure lacked the necessary proportionality to justify the infringement on Charter rights [4]. The ruling was formally issued on April 18, 2026 [1].

This decision follows a period of intense environmental stress in the region. The province had implemented the ban to minimize human-caused ignitions in a landscape primed for combustion, but the court said the total exclusion of the public was an overreach [5].

“The ban was found to unduly limit Charter‑protected mobility rights.”

This ruling limits the ability of Canadian provincial governments to implement blanket prohibitions on land access, even during environmental emergencies. By striking down the ban based on Charter-protected mobility rights, the court signals that emergency measures must be narrowly tailored and proportional to the threat, rather than broad and absolute.