Markets 
Nova Scotia’s premier is doubling down on his government’s so-called “woods ban” last year during extreme drought conditions and high wildfire risk.
The ban, which was imposed on Aug. 5, 2025, prohibited “entry into the woods for the purposes of travelling, camping, fishing or picnicking or any other purpose,” unless there was a valid travel permit. The ban was lifted in phases beginning Aug. 29, 2025.
Last week, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled the ban was unreasonable, and “not a fleeting nor insignificant restriction.” Justice Jamie Campbell said the provincewide ban did not meet the standard for reasonableness because the government failed to consider the impact on Charter rights.
“I respect that to judge’s decision,” Houston told reporters Thursday.
“But I respectfully also acknowledge that we were dealing with information in an emergency situation and we did what we thought was necessary at that time.”
At the time of the ban, the province was facing high, very high or extreme risk of wildfire — and there was no rain forecasted for the next 10 days.
On Aug. 13, 2025, the Long Lake wildfire in the Annapolis Valley began. It would eventually grow to about 8,500 hectares and destroy 20 homes.
Houston said the province initiated and kept the ban as a way to help firefighting crews.
“Most Nova Scotians will remember what we were going through last summer: incredible drought conditions, fire risk was incredibly high across the entire province, people were evacuated, they were losing homes, there was fear of loss of life. This was an incredibly, incredibly stressful time for Nova Scotians,” he said.
Houston said the province isn’t planning to appeal Campbell’s decision but will “always do what is necessary” in a similar situation.
“I will always do what is necessary to keep people safe, to keep properties safe every single time,” he said. “We’ll make that decision. We’ll do that again if necessary.”
NDP Leader Claudia Chender said Thursday that while she doesn’t fault the provincial government for taking action during an unprecedented time, she does believe it failed in its decision-making.
“The government failed to truly understand what the issues were and how best to address them, and I think that’s what the court was saying,” she said.
Get breaking National news
Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won’t miss a trending story.
“I hope it will be guidance to this government that when they make big decisions, that impact people’s lives and livelihoods, that they actually take the time to understand and make sure that they’re doing that in the most effective way.”
‘Pleased by the decision’
The judicial review was prompted by a constitutional challenge filed by Jeffrey Evely, who was fined more than $28,000 for deliberately violating the ban. The legal challenge was paid for by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Evely was outspoken in his opposition to the ban and posted a video of himself walking into the Department of Natural Resources office in Coxheath, N.S., to announce he would be going into the woods in protest.
“I want to challenge this order in court, and the only way to do that is to get the fine,” Evely said in the video. “So I’m not trying to make trouble for you guys, I just want a piece of Tim Houston and I want to be as accommodating and nice as I can be.”
Evely told Global News this week that he is happy with the judge’s decision.
“I thought that it was a pretty clear violation of our rights. I was also pretty pleased by the decision,” he said. “I thought the decision was exactly what it should be and it was refreshing to see.”
Evely said the public has mostly been supportive of his actions.
“I’m really pleased with the public response and it does seem to me that people can see it for what it is: like the government needs to follow the law too,” he said.
Charter implications
Constitutional expert and Dalhousie University law professor Wayne MacKay said the judge’s findings are concerning.
In his view, MacKay said the province wasn’t weighing public safety against Charter rights, because officials didn’t consider those rights at all.
“I think that’s kind of an alarming thing from a government,” MacKay said.
“I’m surprised and disappointed that a government in this day and age would not at least consider what are the Charter implications of this.”
The judge’s ruling also said there was confusion around what qualified as “the woods” in the ban. Campbell said the province’s definition of “woods” included rock barrens, like Peggy’s Cove, or an area where a forest used to be.
MacKay said the judge’s decision doesn’t mean a woods ban can’t be invoked again in the future, but it will need to be done correctly.
“You can have the best cause in the world that everybody agrees with, but if you don’t do it in the way and don’t take account of Charter implications, then it’s going to be struck down,” MacKay said.
Evely’s lawyer, Marty Moore, said the decision serves as a reminder for governments that they must consider the Constitution when making “broad societal affecting orders.”
“That should be a basic first step. It should be on the minds of every government bureaucrat and every government minister,” he said.
“It’s absolutely clear that Nova Scotians have mobility rights to move in and among the province. And that includes the woods and that those rights are protected by the Constitution.”
— with files from Mitchell Bailey, Kendra Gannon and The Canadian Press
Read the full article here
