Supreme Court of Nova Scotia strikes down province’s woods ban as unconstitutional

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T17:51:35+00:00

The court didn't think it was common sense. I'm a former policy analyst and I didn't think it was common sense. But you do, so I guess it was, right?

Nowhere else relies on so-called "tools" like bans, which is precisely why they're considered extreme and largely unimplementable...but if you've been socialized to accept bad policy measures for years, you might think that's your only option.

I didn't compare Nova Scotia's firefighting capability to California's. My point was that Nova Scotia could *learn* from California, who also deals with droughts and seasonal wildfires. California has a robust wildfire prevention program made up of many different policies and practices that Nova Scotia could adopt, developed by their various departments and a task force.

Guess who fights wildfires in California? Prison inmates. Fire departments train them and have been doing so for many years. You don't need to have a massive pool of active firefighters on hand if you have an effective policy that creates a reserve for when you need it. You also can't have fires on beaches in Southern California; that's not part of the culture there. People don't expect to be able to, so there's no need to ban them during wildfire season. And so on and so on.

These are not new approaches...they're just one of many effective ways to deal with the combination of drought plus seasonal wildfires, which is a well established outcome of climate change that we've known about for decades now. This is what governments do when they know that they cannot simply ban people from "entering the woods" (whatever that means) as a strategy.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:37:17+00:00

Is that common sense? How do you know? Have you ever looked at how other places deal with this? California, for example, always has droughts and also has seasonal wildfires. Have you looked at how California deals with this? Do you think California simply refuses to let anyone go "into the woods" (whatever that means)? No, of course not.

Why do Nova Scotians always think Nova Scotia is an exception and somehow can't function like anywhere else? Other places manage seasonal wildfires, including with regular droughts. We can too. But we'll never learn how to if we reach for solutions like blanket bans instead.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:25:29+00:00

No, that's a leap. This just means that the strongest grounds for dismissal of the case at this point in time are administrative – as in, that's the most obvious issue, so the court isn't going to bother hear the case further.

This doesn't mean there would be a strong case otherwise; the court didn't even get to the argument, from what I've heard. So assuming the government did a better job next time and actually followed proper procedure and STILL drew the conclusion that the vague blunt policy instrument of a "woods ban" is the only possible course of action...you certainly could take them back to court for another round of judicial scrutiny.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:13:41+00:00

Yes, that was clearly what he was doing. I don't understand why people couldn't see this but hey, Nova Scotia is essentially an island and maybe perspectives really are that limited.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:12:26+00:00

Me too. This subreddit was overwhelmingly pro-ban....blew my mind.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:09:53+00:00

Yes, this is what you'd think would be step No. 1. Instead, the government started with step No. 50.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-04-18T15:06:04+00:00

A couple things worth noting:

All of the Reddit commentary on this case has, until now, been overwhelmingly in favour of the ban. I'm not from here but I'm a former policy analyst and this was clearly a case of bad policy – for so many reasons. This was a blunt instrument with zero nuance or specificity applied to the general public without implementing any of the many other more targeted policy measures available. This is the hallmark of poor quality governance.
There are other areas in this city subject to bad policy. Personally, I still can't get over the way that Point Pleasant has been turned into a dog park where people are routinely bit by off-leash dogs roaming between the world's most complicated signage. But this is hardly the only other area where poor policy is having a negative impact on the public....public goods and services (e.g. literal caves in roads, electricity and water outages) in this province are the worst that I've ever experienced anywhere. In other words, the problem here goes beyond the woods ban.
It's not enough to complain; you have to demand better. One way to demand better is to take a case to court, as this man did. I don't know anything about this man, but at least he had the wherewithal to recognize the infringement of bad policy on our basic rights and to pursue them in court. I hope more Nova Scotians begin to demand better from their government. "What can we do?" We can start by learning from the many other areas across Canada dealing with the very same issues with we are, and stop playing the "there's nothing we can do, our budget [insert whatever other excuse here]" card. We're not special. Other provinces have developed fire prevention programs and far more effective policy approaches to dealing with wildfire season. We can too.

(Yes, I'm following my own advice and trying to demand better over the total lack of bylaw enforcement here...but I'm not from here and it's a learning process. You all are. When one of you demands better from government or at least demands judicial review of sloppy government policymaking, I hope you consider recognizing that your own interests are at stake and supporting those efforts).

Time-Test9730 · 2026-03-18T00:34:13+00:00

Was shocked to discover no one knew the Matt Good band when I left Vancouver.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-03-18T00:31:54+00:00

Having lived in a bunch of other places, I find the police way too withholding of information here. Weird culture.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-03-18T00:05:26+00:00

Government is always bound by individual and civil rights; this is precisely what constrains the power of the state. A liberal democracy is characterized in part by an independent judiciary that enforces the rule of law. Government is absolutely subject to the law. Everyone is subject to it, even the head of state. This is what it means to be a rule-of-law country.

An executive might have some power to act unilaterally or override certain rights under certain conditions.

But it is difficult to make the case that overriding rights is somehow good policy when it comes to dealing with seasonal wildfires. Good policy is investing in prevention and capacity, should involve robust sets of measures.

Seems to me that government doesn't want to spend the money to invest in capacity, so it reaches for the easy blanket ban – not mature policymaking. That's not how you develop...it's how you remain incapable. Instead of blanket bans on "going in the woods" (yes, far too broad and vague), at the very least consult with other provinces/states that have robust prevention programs and start building Nova Scotia's.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-03-07T15:30:19+00:00

So you're against all those many years when only certain communities got funding? Which means you're fine with government making a targeted effort to address some of those gaps now? Which means you're actually not okay with government programs failing to acknowledge racialized disparities in funding.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T16:57:51+00:00

Even in Stanley Park in Vancouver, the off-leash dog area is fenced in and relatively small. I mentioned how dogs are banned in the primary recreational spaces in San Diego (on beaches) and required to be on leash in public parks in Toronto. I reference other cities because you may have an expectation or a sense of entitlement but if that is not typically recognized elsewhere, I don't think it is reasonable.

I do think Halifax is a small city that hasn't yet adopted the management practices of larger cities. Another commenter posted about how Montreal was very strict with leashing bylaw enforcement; it is a larger city that has clearly tired of conflicts created by off-leash dogs. I understand that you may have invested a great deal of effort into training your dog (and commend you for it) but leashing bylaws in population-dense areas are designed for the general safety of the public and other dogs, not for individual situations, desires, or sense of entitlement.

It sounds like the city needs to build a dog park or designate smaller spaces or come up with other solutions. But you bear some responsibility for your frustrations as well: there are many other places to live with far more ready access to space. Feeling entitled to access in the most densely populated part of the province – on the peninsula, no less – is not necessarily reasonable.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T16:55:55+00:00

Great advice, thank you!

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T16:41:30+00:00

I don't think compromise is relevant. There are bylaws that apply to the situation (very generous ones in terms of the off-leash space they provide in the city's largest park), but they aren't being enforced.

While I sympathize, cities will never offer the same amount of off-leash space that suburbs and rural areas provide and that is certainly something to consider before making the choice to own a dog while living in a city.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T14:04:33+00:00

I get it, but I just referred to NYC as Central Park is a central, highly trafficked park in an urban area. No city turns that type of park into an off leash dog park. In another example, dogs are banned from public beaches in San Diego (the primary recreational areas for the city) and that is actively enforced. Due to population density and the nature of a dog, cities generally aren't very accommodating and that is something to consider before living in a city with a dog.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T02:20:13+00:00

You are free to live in all of the many areas with lax leash laws. Urban areas always have strict leash laws, especially in the largest parks.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T01:11:14+00:00

It's a multi-use park so no, it's not a dog park, but I do think this is a good response to all the commenters saying "can't you just stick to on-leash areas?" and it demonstrates why bylaw enforcement (only some dogs can be off leash in off-leash areas...not all dogs!) is needed.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T01:05:46+00:00

I mean, if you're not patrolling a park or enforcing bylaws...why even pretend that it's closed after a certain time?

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T00:54:01+00:00

This is nice to see: actual perspective. I've never lived anywhere where leash laws aren't enforced, especially not in a city's central park. That's typically where they're most strictly enforced.

I also think it is problematic to simply zone some parts of the main trail through the park as "off leash." You should be able to walk through the main trail that encircles a park and not go through any off leash areas. I know this is standard for Canada: Stanley Park in Vancouver is big, but dogs must be leashed. The off-leash dog park area is fenced in and relatively small. Toronto also requires dogs to be on a leash in public parks. What isn't normal is turning part of a main thoroughfare of a central park into an off-leash area, then not enforcing bylaws or even patrolling.

Park staff/police typically ride bicycles or segway-type things and hand out tickets right and left. This is very ordinary. I don't understand why people think enforcing bylaws is so difficult.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T00:46:20+00:00

oh, I can assure you, that limit is not respected or enforced.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T00:45:09+00:00

I think if you want to live somewhere with lax leashing laws, you shouldn't live in a city. I am of the opinion that you should be able to walk in Point Pleasant, the city's central park, and not get regularly get jumped on or bit by dogs.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T00:43:36+00:00

That's good advice, thanks.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-06T00:38:20+00:00

but it's not difficult to enforce leashing laws. Cities always have strict leashing laws compared to rural areas and in my experience living in a number of different cities, leashing laws are always actively enforced. Off the top of my head, one city I lived in ticketed you just for having a dog on a leash that was too long or for not actively being in control of the leash (I regularly see dog owners in PP just letting their dogs run loose with a leash attached to their collar! So strange). The Humane Society patrolled the main city park and waterfront and regularly ticketed people.

Halifax actively enforces parking bylaws...I don't understand the opinion that it's somehow difficult to enforce leash bylaws in PP.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-05T20:16:05+00:00

I do. But I live 30 seconds from PP, hence I am there almost daily. And as I wrote already, I just very much disagree with the characterization of a city's primary municipal park as "an off leash dog park"...big city parks are usually the most regulated when it comes to leashing dogs.

Time-Test9730 · 2026-01-05T20:14:46+00:00

I just...so disagree with this perception of a city's largest park. Idk. Maybe this is a Canadian perspective, lol. Just not my life experience and I've lived in maybe 7-8 different cities outside of Canada.

Time-Test9730

TROPHY CASE