Our ancient right to move about freely was affirmed and vindicated by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on April 17, 2026 (also the 44th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms coming into force).
The Charter challenge was brought by Canadian Armed Forces Veteran Jeff Evely, who was fined $28,872.50 just for walking in the woods. He was issued the fine for not complying with Nova Scotia’s province-wide ban on walking (and hiking, picnicking, fishing, swimming, boating, bird-watching) proclaimed in August 2025. The pretext for the ban was to prevent forest fires. Sadly, this law targeted people rather than potentially dangerous activities like smoking, campfires and cooking.
In striking down this arbitrary and overly broad law, the court ruled that Charter Section 6 mobility rights “sit at the heart of what it means to be a free person,” protecting us against curfews, requirements to carry identity papers in public, and outright blockades on movement.
The Magna Carta of 1215 included the right “to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear,” with all merchants free to “stay or travel within England, by land or water … in accordance with ancient and lawful customs.” William Blackstone, in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1768), Book I, regarded as “a right strictly natural” that “personal liberty consists in the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.”
Canada’s 1867 Constitution was intended and required to be “similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” Canadians have therefore inherited the common law tradition, older even than the Magna Carta, of presumptive freedom of movement: to be where one wants to be.
The court ruled in favour of Evely because Nova Scotia’s decree affected mobility rights: “people could no longer go where they had once gone.” This was not a fleeting or insignificant restriction,” ruled the court, but one that “substantially affected peoples’ lives.”
Under Section 1 of the Charter, Canada’s federal and provincial governments can justify “demonstrably” with cogent and persuasive evidence that a particular restriction on mobility rights is reasonable and truly necessary, doing more good than harm. But in the Evely case, there was no evidence that government officials had even considered Charter rights or values. The documents showing the considerations of the Minister of Natural Resources and his department (before the decision was made) made no reference to the Charter at all, contrary to what the Charter requires.
The court also noted that the term “woods” in the Forests Act was unacceptably vague, by including bog (wet muddy ground), muskeg (swamp with water and partly dead vegetation), “rock barren,” and land without trees but with “surface evidence of past forest occupancy.” The court found that Nova Scotians seeking to avoid the $28,872.50 fine (and jail terms up to six months) were left in an “interpretative quandary” because “the woods are not the forest, but the forests are part of the woods. The woods do not mean that trees are present. The trees could have been removed. But if trees are present that could be the woods, though it was not clear how many trees were required. … And one might reasonably ask what staying out of a wet bog has to do with the mitigation of fire risk.”
The Charter Section 7 right to “life, liberty and security of the person” is engaged when a person can be jailed for violating a vague law. Nova Scotia’s vague ban failed to provide fair notice to citizens about what conduct was prohibited, and left the door open to law enforcement abusing its authority. In the Evely case, the court did not rule definitively about whether the ban on walking in the woods violated Section 7. However, the court noted that “there is a compelling argument that the ban was so vague as to be incapable of being interpreted at all. People needed to know what activities would put them at risk of getting a substantial fine. Being told that they could go fishing by travelling through the woods provided they did not go any ‘great distance,’ or that they should use common-sense, puts people at risk of a penalty on the basis of at best unclear rules.”
Mr. Evely saw the August 2025 ban as Orwellian, punishing ordinary people rather than targeting the actions most likely to cause fires. He stated: “It’s about human dignity. … I find the cavalier attitude with which these freedoms have been impaired to be a gross indignity to our fallen soldiers, and a moral injury to those of us still here. This moral injury serves to exacerbate my PTSD symptoms, which I have been managing with therapy, medication, and daily outdoor activity, which I normally conduct in the woods.” Evely had no guarantee or assurance of winning in court, when he deliberately defied the government’s decree and received the $28,872.50 fine.
This court ruling is a victory for freedom and common sense, warning governments to think twice before violating the Charter freedoms of Canadians. It will likely also result in invalidating the fine that Evely was issued for walking in the woods.
We should all be thankful that there are freedom-loving Canadians like Jeff Evely who are willing engage in civil disobedience—to the benefit all citizens.
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
