Failing to Safeguard Seized Property in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: September 13 2026

---

Question: If I’m in Ontario and charged with failing to safeguard seized property under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, what steps should I take before my court date?

Answer: If you received a summons or ticket, read the exact offence wording and deadline, then document what the Conservation Officer seized, where it was left, your instructions and storage/security steps, access by others, and any communications about removal or ending the investigation. The duty only applies if the officer left the seized thing with you as the occupant under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, subsection 92(3.1), and the charge alleges a failure to safeguard it under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, subsection 92(3.2).   Don’t pay or act in a way that could amount to a guilty plea until you confirm the charge details and safeguarding duty timing, and keep seizure records, photos, video, messages, and any storage/access evidence.   To discuss options and next steps for Ontario provincial offences, contact DefendCharges.ca™ at (647) 559-3377.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Failing to Safeguard Seized Property in Ontario

Received a ticket or summons for Failing to Safeguard Seized Property in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario wildlife law.  The charge concerns a thing that a Conservation Officer seized and then left in your custody as an occupant of the building or other place where it was seized, and whether you failed to safeguard that thing as required by subsection 92(3.2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Note: Please contact DefendCharges.ca™ by phone at: (647) 559-3377 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

Do not panic.  Being charged does not automatically mean you will be convicted.  This offence does not apply merely because property was seized or because you were present when a seizure occurred.  The custody arrangement, whether the safeguarding duty was still in effect, what happened to the property, and the precautions you took can all matter.

This page explains what a Failing to Safeguard Seized Property charge means, when the safeguarding duty arises and ends, what must be proven, the current fine position and possible consequences, the evidence and legal issues that may matter, and what may happen next.  This offence is part of Conservation Officers & Investigations.

I Received a Failing to Safeguard Seized Property Ticket or Summons.  What Should I Do?

A summons is a court document requiring you to attend court or respond as directed.  Read every document carefully and do not miss the response deadline or required court date.

Start with the exact offence wording and section number on your documents.  The current Ontario Court of Justice Schedule 17.5 uses the short form wording Fail to safeguard thing as required for an offence under subsection 92(3.2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  The schedule currently lists the offence as N.S.F., meaning no set fine is prescribed.

Record what happened while the details are still fresh.  Note what property was seized, where it was located, what the Conservation Officer said when leaving it at the location, what instructions were given, how the property was stored or protected, who had access to it, what is said to have happened to it, and any later communication about removing the property or ending the investigation.

Keep your ticket or summons and any seizure records, photographs, video, messages, storage or access records, officer instructions, and other material showing the condition, location, custody, or handling of the seized thing.  Do not delete, alter, discard, or modify potentially important evidence.

Should I Pay the Ticket?

This offence currently has no prescribed set fine.  Do not assume there is an amount you can simply pay to end the matter.  Follow the instructions on your ticket, summons, or other charging document and identify the exact charge before taking any step that would amount to a guilty plea.

N.S.F. means no set fine is prescribed in the Ontario Court of Justice schedule.  It does not mean there can be no fine or other sentence after conviction.  The possible court penalties are explained below.

What Is a Failing to Safeguard Seized Property Charge?

Failing to Safeguard Seized Property is a plain English title for the offence of failing to safeguard a thing as required by subsection 92(3.2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  Section 92 governs seizure and forfeiture under the Act.

When a Conservation Officer seizes a thing, subsection 92(3) generally requires the officer to deliver it to a person authorized by the Minister for safekeeping.  Subsection 92(3.1) creates another option: despite subsection 92(3), the officer may leave the seized thing in the custody of the occupant of the building or other place where it was seized.

The Act does not define occupant for subsection 92(3.1).  For this charge, the important issue is whether the evidence establishes that you were the occupant in whose custody the Conservation Officer left the seized thing.

If a thing is left in an occupant's custody under subsection 92(3.1), subsection 92(3.2) requires the occupant to safeguard it until one of the statutory ending events occurs.  The thing remains seized even though it has been left at the building or other place instead of being physically removed by the officer.

The charge should therefore be matched to the particular seized thing, the evidence that it was left in your custody under subsection 92(3.1), the period during which the duty applied, and the conduct said to amount to a failure to safeguard.  Other Conservation Officer enforcement offences are organized under Conservation Officers & Investigations.

When Does the Safeguarding Duty Apply?

The subsection 92(3.2) duty applies only when a seized thing has been left in the custody of an occupant under subsection 92(3.1).  It is not a general duty imposed on every person who owns, uses, or is near seized property.

The prosecution should therefore be able to establish the seizure, the location, the decision to leave the thing rather than remove it, and the custody arrangement relied on.  If those facts are disputed, officer notes, seizure records, photographs, video, communications, and witness evidence may be important.

Does Every Seized Thing Fall Under This Safeguarding Duty?

No.  Subsection 92(3.2) applies only to a thing left with an occupant under subsection 92(3.1).  Subsection 92(3.3) also provides that subsections 92(3) and 92(3.1) do not apply to a thing that a search warrant issued under Part VIII of the Provincial Offences Act requires to be carried before a justice, meaning a provincial judge or justice of the peace under the Provincial Offences Act.

This means subsection 92(3.3) limits when the officer can use the ordinary section 92(3) safekeeping route or the subsection 92(3.1) option of leaving the thing with an occupant.  It is not a separate exception that ends an otherwise valid subsection 92(3.2) duty after property has already been lawfully left in an occupant's custody.

What Does "Safeguard" Mean?

Subsection 92(3.2) requires the occupant to safeguard the seized thing, but the Act does not provide a detailed definition of safeguard for this offence.  The question therefore depends on the ordinary meaning of the term and the circumstances surrounding the particular property and custody arrangement.

Evidence about the condition and location of the thing, storage arrangements, locks or other security, access by other people, instructions from the Conservation Officer, steps taken after a problem was discovered, and whether the item remained available can help the court decide whether it was safeguarded as required.  Those facts are evidence; they are not a separate statutory checklist that every occupant must satisfy in exactly the same way.

How Long Does the Safeguarding Duty Last?

The safeguarding duty lasts until one of the ending events listed in subsection 92(3.2) occurs.  The occupant must safeguard the seized thing until:

• A Conservation Officer removes the thing;
• The occupant is notified by a Conservation Officer that the investigation has concluded and that a charge will not be laid; or
• If a charge is laid, the defendant is acquitted or the charge is dismissed, withdrawn, or finally disposed of.

Acquitted means found not guilty.  A charge is withdrawn when the prosecutor ends the prosecution without continuing it to a finding of guilt.  If there is a dispute about when the safeguarding duty ended, the actual court record and communications from the Conservation Officer should be reviewed.

Does the Seized Property Have to Belong to You?

No.  Subsection 92(3.2) focuses on the custody arrangement created under subsection 92(3.1), not on whether you own the seized thing.  Property may belong to another person and still be left in the custody of an occupant of the place where it was seized.

Ownership can still be relevant to access, control, and what happened to the item, but it does not replace the need to prove the subsection 92(3.1) custody arrangement.  The prosecution must connect the statutory safeguarding duty to you.

What Law Applies?

Section 92 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 is the principal provision for this charge.  Subsection 92(1) contains the general seizure power, subsection 92(3) addresses safekeeping, subsection 92(3.1) permits a seized thing to be left in the custody of an occupant, subsection 92(3.2) creates the safeguarding duty, and subsection 92(3.3) contains the search warrant limitation described above.

The safeguarding duty is created directly by subsection 92(3.2), rather than by a separate regulation.  The key legal questions are whether the seized thing was left in your custody under subsection 92(3.1), whether the duty was still continuing, and whether it was safeguarded as required.

What Must Be Proven?

The prosecutor, meaning the lawyer or representative presenting the government's case, must prove every required part of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is the high legal standard that must be met before the court can find you guilty.

For a charge of failing to safeguard a thing as required under subsection 92(3.2), the important issues generally include:

• That the thing had been seized by a Conservation Officer;
• That the seized thing was left in your custody as an occupant under subsection 92(3.1);
• Your identity as the occupant said to be responsible for safeguarding the thing;
• That the subsection 92(3.2) safeguarding duty was still in effect at the relevant time;
• What happened to the seized thing while the duty applied; and
• That you failed to safeguard the thing as required.

The prosecution should be able to identify the particular thing, the custody arrangement, the relevant period, and the conduct said to constitute the failure.  The charge is not established merely by proving that the property had previously been seized.

Subsection 92(3.2) does not expressly use words such as knowingly or intentionally.  Evidence about reasonable precautions, circumstances beyond your control, and factual mistakes may instead become important when the statutory defences are considered.

What Are Common Situations That Lead to This Charge?

The Seized Thing Could Not Be Located

A charge may arise where a Conservation Officer later seeks the seized thing and it cannot be located.  The evidence may focus on where the item was kept, who had access to it, when it was last seen, and what steps were taken to protect it.

The Seized Thing Was Moved, Altered, Damaged, or Disposed Of

The prosecution may rely on evidence that property left in the occupant's custody was moved, altered, damaged, destroyed, transferred, discarded, or otherwise made unavailable before the safeguarding duty ended.  The legal question remains whether the evidence proves a failure to safeguard in the circumstances.

Another Person Had Access to the Seized Thing

Shared homes, businesses, camps, storage areas, or other locations can create disputes about access and control.  Evidence may address what precautions you took, who else could reach the thing, what instructions were given to others, and whether another person's conduct occurred despite reasonable safeguards.

The Parties Disagree About When the Duty Ended

A dispute may concern whether a Conservation Officer had removed the thing, whether notice was given that the investigation had concluded without a charge, or whether a related charge had reached an ending event described in subsection 92(3.2).  Messages, notices, court records, dates, and officer notes can be important.

What Is the Fine?

There is currently no prescribed set fine for failing to safeguard a thing as required under subsection 92(3.2).  The current Ontario Court of Justice Schedule 17.5 lists Fail to safeguard thing as required as N.S.F..

N.S.F. means no set fine is prescribed in the schedule.  It does not mean no fine or other sentence can be imposed after conviction.

Under section 102 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, the general maximum for a person convicted of an offence under the Act is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

Those are maximum penalties, not automatic sentences.  Section 104 also permits a court after conviction to restrict a licence or authorization of a kind related to the offence and the activity requiring it.  That consequence is discretionary and is relevant only if there is a sufficient relationship between the offence and the particular licence or authorization.

What Evidence May Be Used?

The most important evidence usually concerns the original seizure, the decision to leave the thing in an occupant's custody, the condition and location of the property, the precautions taken, and what happened before the statutory duty ended.

Seizure Records and Officer Notes

Officer notes, seizure records, photographs, property descriptions, serial numbers, notices, and reports may help establish what was seized, where it was seized, who was present, and whether the officer left the thing in your custody under subsection 92(3.1).

Instructions and Communications

Written instructions, messages, emails, recorded conversations, officer video, and witness evidence may show what you were told about the seized property, where it was to remain, any restrictions communicated by the officer, and later communications about removal or the investigation.

Storage, Access, and Security Evidence

Locks, keys, access logs, security footage, photographs, storage arrangements, alarm records, and testimony from people with access to the location may help establish what precautions were taken and who could reach the seized thing.

Condition and Movement Evidence

Photographs, video, GPS records, repair or disposal records, receipts, electronic data, and witness evidence may be used to establish the condition or location of the seized thing and whether it was moved, altered, damaged, transferred, destroyed, or otherwise made unavailable.

Investigation and Court Records

Officer communications, notices, court records, and prosecution records may help establish whether a charge was laid and when the safeguarding duty under subsection 92(3.2) ended.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The defence depends on the particular seized thing, the custody arrangement, what happened to it, and the steps you took while the safeguarding duty applied.  The charge should be assessed against the exact subsection 92 requirements rather than assuming that any problem involving seized property establishes guilt.

The Thing Was Not Left in Your Custody Under Subsection 92(3.1)

The subsection 92(3.2) duty depends on a seized thing having been left in the custody of an occupant under subsection 92(3.1).  If the officer removed the property, left it with someone else, or the prosecution cannot establish the custody arrangement relied on, that may affect whether subsection 92(3.2) applied to you.

You Were Not the Occupant Relied on by the Prosecution

Identity and occupancy can be disputed where several people used or controlled a location.  The prosecution must establish the facts connecting you to the occupant role and to the seized thing said to have been left in your custody.

The Safeguarding Duty Had Already Ended

The duty ends when one of the events listed in subsection 92(3.2) occurs.  Evidence that an officer had already removed the thing, notified the occupant that the investigation concluded without a charge, or that a charge had already reached the applicable statutory ending point may be important.

The Thing Was Safeguarded as Required

The prosecution must prove a failure to safeguard, not merely that something later happened to the property.  Evidence about storage, locks, restricted access, monitoring, instructions to others, prompt reporting, or other precautions may be relevant to whether the statutory duty was met.

Due Diligence

Due diligence means taking all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the offence.  Section 101 provides a defence where the person charged establishes that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.  The nature of the seized property, foreseeable risks, access by other people, officer instructions, and the precautions actually taken may all matter.

Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact

An honest and reasonable mistake of fact means honestly and reasonably believing facts that, if true, would make the conduct innocent.  Section 101 recognizes this defence.  Depending on the evidence, a reasonable factual mistake about whether the item had been removed, whether the safeguarding period had ended, what property was subject to the seizure, or another material fact may be relevant.

Could the Seized Property Be Returned or Forfeited?

Yes, but the safeguarding charge does not by itself determine the final status of the seized property.  Section 92 contains separate rules for return and forfeiture of seized things, and the result can depend on the underlying seizure, whether another charge was laid, the outcome of the prosecution, the type of property, and any court order.

Forfeiture means permanent loss of ownership.  If the seized thing remains at your property, do not assume that an ending event for the safeguarding duty automatically answers every separate question about ownership, return, use, or forfeiture.  The legal status of the property should be checked against the applicable section 92 provisions and any directions or court orders in the case.

What Happens Next?

Your ticket, summons, or other charging document should identify the next procedural step and any response deadline or court date.  Do not miss that deadline while obtaining legal advice or deciding how to respond.

If you dispute the charge, the prosecution's disclosure should be obtained and reviewed.  Disclosure is the relevant information and evidence in the prosecutor's possession or control that you are entitled to receive, subject to the law.  It may include seizure records, officer notes, photographs, video, instructions, messages, witness statements, property records, and evidence about what happened to the seized thing.

The review should focus on whether the property was seized and left in your custody under subsection 92(3.1), whether you were the occupant relied on by the prosecution, when the subsection 92(3.2) duty began and ended, what precautions were taken, what happened to the property, and whether a statutory defence or other legal issue is supported by the evidence.

The prosecutor may withdraw the charge, meaning the charge is no longer being pursued, or the matter may be resolved by a guilty plea or another agreement, or proceed to trial.  The appropriate response depends on the evidence, legal issues, possible consequences, and circumstances of your case.

How Can DefendCharges.ca™ Help?

DefendCharges.ca™ can review the wording on your ticket, summons, seizure notice, or other documents and compare it with the wildlife, records, and activity involved.  This can help identify the exact charge, the legal requirements that apply, and the factual issues that may be important to your case.

If the matter proceeds through court, DefendCharges.ca™ can explain the court process, review the available evidence and legal issues, discuss possible penalties or other consequences, and help you understand your options for responding to the charge.

Have Questions About Hunting Charges?

Whether you have been charged with one hunting offence or several, understanding your legal options is important.  DefendCharges.ca™ can review your case, explain the charges you are facing, and help you understand your legal options and the best course of action.  Contact us today to discuss your situation.

Key Takeaways

• The current short form offence is Fail to safeguard thing as required under subsection 92(3.2);
• The duty applies only when a seized thing is left in an occupant's custody under subsection 92(3.1);
• Subsection 92(3.3) prevents the subsection 92(3.1) leaving with occupant route from being used for a thing that the specified search warrant requires to be carried before a justice;
• The safeguarding duty lasts until one of the ending events listed in subsection 92(3.2) occurs;
• The current Ontario Court of Justice schedule lists the offence as N.S.F., meaning no set fine is prescribed;
• The prosecution must prove a failure to safeguard the particular seized thing, while the precautions taken and access by others may be important evidence; and
• Due diligence and an honest and reasonable mistake of fact may apply where supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

A Failing to Safeguard Seized Property charge should be reviewed by examining the complete custody arrangement created under section 92.  The important questions include what was seized, whether it was left in your custody as an occupant under subsection 92(3.1), when the safeguarding duty applied, what happened to the property, and what precautions you took.

Before entering a plea or otherwise resolving the charge, review the charging document, seizure records, disclosure, officer instructions, photographs or video, storage and access evidence, possible consequences, and any defence or legal issue supported by the circumstances.  Legal representation can help determine whether the evidence proves the offence and what options are available for responding.