This mistreated dog came to our shelter carrying deep fear from his past. At first, he wouldn’t eat, stayed curled in the corner, trembling and flinching at every little sound. He didn’t know how to trust or feel safe.
Then our gentle Pit Bull named Honey showed up... moving slowly, giving space, and quietly sharing food. The little dog began to open up, slowly learning what trust feels like, until finally he chose to sit close, finally feeling safe and not alone anymore. And for the first time, he felt what it meant to be loved. Honey the Pit Bull deserves recognition for his gentle, kind heart. ❤
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Rules the 2025 Wildfire Emergency Ban on Walking in the Woods Violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has ruled that the province’s 2025 ban on entering forested areas during a wildfire emergency was unconstitutional, siding with a Canadian Armed Forces veteran who was fined nearly $29,000 for deliberately violating the order.
The case centred on Jeffrey Evely, a retired soldier from Sydney, Nova Scotia, who was issued a $28,872.50 fine after entering the woods during the province’s emergency restrictions last summer. The ban, imposed under the provincial Forests Act, prohibited public access to vast forested areas as officials sought to reduce wildfire risk during a period of extreme dryness.
Evely challenged the restriction, arguing it violated his Charter rights, including his right to liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His legal team, supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, argued the measure was overly broad and disproportionately restricted lawful outdoor activity.
Court filings indicated the ban applied across most of the province and included activities such as hiking, fishing, and walking in wooded areas, even in cases where no fire risk was present. Critics of the policy also argued that it allowed certain industrial activities to continue while restricting public access.
The province defended the emergency order as a necessary and time-sensitive response to heightened wildfire danger, arguing it fell within the government’s authority to protect public safety during extraordinary conditions.
The court ultimately found the sweeping restrictions violated constitutional protections, marking a significant ruling on the limits of emergency powers during environmental crises.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Rules the 2025 Wildfire Emergency Ban on Walking in the Woods Violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has ruled that the province’s 2025 ban on entering forested areas during a wildfire emergency was unconstitutional, siding with a Canadian Armed Forces veteran who was fined nearly $29,000 for deliberately violating the order.
The case centred on Jeffrey Evely, a retired soldier from Sydney, Nova Scotia, who was issued a $28,872.50 fine after entering the woods during the province’s emergency restrictions last summer. The ban, imposed under the provincial Forests Act, prohibited public access to vast forested areas as officials sought to reduce wildfire risk during a period of extreme dryness.
Evely challenged the restriction, arguing it violated his Charter rights, including his right to liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His legal team, supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, argued the measure was overly broad and disproportionately restricted lawful outdoor activity.
Court filings indicated the ban applied across most of the province and included activities such as hiking, fishing, and walking in wooded areas, even in cases where no fire risk was present. Critics of the policy also argued that it allowed certain industrial activities to continue while restricting public access.
The province defended the emergency order as a necessary and time-sensitive response to heightened wildfire danger, arguing it fell within the government’s authority to protect public safety during extraordinary conditions.
The court ultimately found the sweeping restrictions violated constitutional protections, marking a significant ruling on the limits of emergency powers during environmental crises.