Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court addressed whether the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) should be granted public interest standing to challenge a Proclamation issued by the Minister of Natural Resources of Nova Scotia restricting entry into the woods during a drought.

• The Proclamation, issued under s. 25(1) of the Forests Act, prohibited entry into the woods without a valid travel permit and imposed a potential $25,000 fine for violations.

• CCF challenged the Proclamation as allegedly exceeding statutory authority, failing to consider Charter rights and values, and being vague and overbroad.

• The respondent opposed CCF’s standing, citing its lack of direct connection to Nova Scotia and the existence of a parallel judicial review by a directly affected individual, Jeffrey Evely.

• The court applied the three-part test for public interest standing: serious justiciable issue, genuine interest, and whether the suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case.

• Public interest standing was granted to the CCF, with the court finding its involvement appropriate and not prejudicial to other proceedings.

Background and facts of the case

The Province of Nova Scotia experienced an unprecedented drought, creating significant risk to people, natural resources, and industries. In response to the risk of wildfires, on August 5, 2025, the Minister of Natural Resources issued a Proclamation under s. 25(1) of the Forests Act, RSNS 1989, c. 179. The Proclamation prohibited entry into the woods for purposes such as travelling, camping, fishing, or picnicking, or any other purpose, without a valid travel permit in all counties in Nova Scotia. The Proclamation took effect at 4:00 p.m. on August 5, 2025, and was set to end at 2:00 p.m. on October 15, 2025, unless revoked or amended earlier. Persons contravening the Proclamation could be prosecuted and may be subject to a $25,000 fine.

On August 15, 2025, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), a nationally registered charity, filed a Notice of Judicial Review. The CCF alleged that the Proclamation exceeded the authority conferred by the Act, failed to consider the proportional impact of Charter rights and values, and was vague and overbroad. The CCF also filed a Notice of Motion for Public Interest Standing. The court scheduled the Motion for Directions and the Motion for Public Interest Standing for August 26, 2025. The respondent filed a Notice of Participation and an Undertaking to Seek Directions Regarding the Production of the Record on August 18, 2025.

The CCF did not have private interest standing, so the issue was whether it should be granted public interest standing. After the CCF filed its Notice of Judicial Review, on August 20, 2025, Jeffrey Evely, a resident of Nova Scotia who received a summary offence ticket for allegedly breaching the Proclamation, also filed a Notice of Judicial Review (Hfx No. 546181). Mr. Evely alleged that the Proclamation was unreasonable, ultra vires, and unreasonably limited his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court directed that the Motion for Directions would be heard at the same time as the CCF’s motion, but Mr. Evely did not participate in the motion for Public Interest Standing except to state that he did not oppose it.

At the outset of the hearing, the court granted the respondent’s motion to strike and/or disregard certain impugned portions of the applicant’s affidavit sworn by Christine Van Geyn as inadmissible opinion, hearsay, and argument, and advised that no weight would be afforded to those portions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion for public interest standing, with reasons to follow.

Legal principles and test for public interest standing

The parties agreed that the leading case on public interest standing is Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, as affirmed in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27. The Supreme Court set out three factors to be weighed cumulatively and purposively: (1) whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, (2) whether the party bringing the action has a genuine interest in the matter, and (3) whether the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the case to court. The court must balance the purposes of granting and limiting standing, including the efficient allocation of judicial resources, ensuring courts have the benefit of contending points of view, and ensuring courts play their proper role in the democratic system. The legality principle and access to justice are also central considerations.

Analysis of the standing application

The respondent acknowledged that the issues framed by the Notice for Judicial Review met the threshold for a serious justiciable issue and that the CCF’s broad mandate to defend constitutionally protected rights and freedoms encompassed the subject matter. However, the respondent argued that the CCF’s lack of direct connection to Nova Scotia—having no office, staff, or membership in the province—meant it lacked a “real stake” in the proceedings. The court found that the CCF’s Ontario headquarters was not a disqualifying factor in this case, especially since there was no competing claim for standing from a Nova Scotia organization with similar experience.

The principal ground of objection was whether the proposed suit was a reasonable and effective means of bringing the case to court. The respondent noted that Mr. Evely, a directly affected individual, had filed a parallel judicial review, which would provide valuable factual context. The respondent argued that permitting both reviews would duplicate effort and judicial resources. The court, however, noted that the existence of a private litigant does not automatically preclude public interest standing, particularly where the public interest group can provide valuable legal expertise and advocacy. The court found that the CCF had the resources and expertise to present the issues and that its proceeding would not prejudice subsequent proceedings. Mr. Evely’s counsel welcomed the prospect of both proceedings advancing together.

Outcome and ruling

Justice Scott C. Norton granted public interest standing to the CCF. The court found that granting standing would serve the purpose of preventing the immunization of legislation or public acts from challenge and that the CCF’s involvement would add value to the proceedings. The motion for public interest standing was granted. No monetary award was at issue in this decision, as it concerned only the question of standing. The CCF was permitted to proceed with its judicial review of the Proclamation.