Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: September 13 2026

---

Question: What should I do after being charged with failing to stop for a conservation officer in Ontario?

Answer: After a failing to stop for a conservation officer charge in Ontario, don’t ignore the summons, don’t assume the stop power was automatically valid, and avoid paying the ticket until you review the exact wording and the officer’s legal basis for the stop under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997; record every detail of the signal, your location, what you were driving or operating, and what you did immediately after, because the stop signal and proof you were the operator can be central issues.   If you want legal support from a paralegal at DefendCharges.ca™ in Ontario, call (647) 559-3377 to discuss next steps and how DefendCharges.ca™ can help you prepare for the Ontario Court of Justice process and protect your rights.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer in Ontario

Received a ticket or summons for Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario wildlife law.  The charge concerns whether, while operating a vehicle, boat, or aircraft, you failed to immediately stop after a Conservation Officer gave a signal requiring you to stop.

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.  A Conservation Officer's stop power is not unlimited.  The legal basis for the stop, the signal that was given, whether you were the operator, and what happened after the signal can all matter.

This page explains what a Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer charge means, when a Conservation Officer may stop a conveyance, what stop signals Ontario law recognizes, what must be proven, the current set fine 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 Stop for a Conservation Officer 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 ticket or summons.  The current Ontario Court of Justice set fine schedule uses the short form wording Fail to stop for conservation officer for an offence under subsection 89(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Record what happened while the details are still fresh.  Note where you were, what you were operating, how the officer appeared to signal you, when you first noticed the signal, what you did after noticing it, where you eventually stopped if you did stop, who was present, and whether photographs, video, GPS records, dash camera footage, messages, or other records may exist.

Keep your ticket or summons and any available records connected with the stop.  Do not delete, alter, discard, or modify potentially important evidence.

Should I Pay the Ticket?

Paying the ticket will generally be treated as pleading guilty and will result in a conviction, meaning a finding of guilt.  Before paying, review whether the section 89 stop power was lawfully engaged, whether a stop signal was given, whether you were the operator, and what the evidence shows about your response to the signal.

The failure to stop charge is separate from a charge for failing to produce wildlife, documents, or other things for inspection.  Both duties appear in subsection 89(2), but the current set fine schedule treats failing to stop and failing to produce things for inspection as separate offences.

What Is a Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer Charge?

Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer is an offence arising from subsection 89(2) of Ontario's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  Section 89 deals with Conservation Officer inspections of conveyances.

A conveyance means a vehicle, boat, or aircraft.  Subsection 89(1) allows a Conservation Officer to stop a conveyance where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that stopping it would assist in determining whether there is compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 or its regulations.

Reasonable grounds means the officer must have an objectively supportable basis for the belief required by subsection 89(1).  The officer does not need to have already proven that another wildlife offence occurred before exercising the inspection stop power.

Once the section 89 stop power is lawfully exercised, subsection 89(2) requires the operator to immediately stop on the Conservation Officer's signal.  The same subsection separately requires the operator to produce for inspection wildlife, invertebrates, fish, documents, or other things requested by the officer for the purposes of the Act.

The failure to stop charge therefore focuses on the officer's authority to initiate the section 89 stop, the signal, your role as operator, and what happened after the signal was given.  Other Conservation Officer enforcement offences are organized under Conservation Officers & Investigations.

When Can a Conservation Officer Stop a Vehicle, Boat, or Aircraft?

A Conservation Officer may stop a conveyance under section 89 when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that stopping it would assist in determining compliance with Ontario's fish and wildlife law or its regulations.  The provision is an inspection power, but it contains a legal threshold that must be satisfied before the officer exercises the stop power.

The officer does not need to have already established that a hunting, trapping, fishing, possession, transportation, or other wildlife offence occurred.  The question under subsection 89(1) is whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the stop would assist in determining compliance with the Act or regulations.

If the legal basis for the stop is disputed, the circumstances known to the officer when the stop was initiated may matter.  Officer notes, observations, dispatch information, location, time, wildlife or hunting activity, equipment, and other circumstances may be relevant to that issue.

What Signals Can a Conservation Officer Use to Require a Stop?

Ontario law identifies several signals that can be used for a section 89 stop.  For a vehicle, subsection 89(3) includes intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light.  For a boat, it includes intermittent flashes of blue light.  A hand signal to stop is also included for a vehicle or boat.

The legislation uses the word include when describing stop signals, so the listed signals are not necessarily the only possible evidence that a stop direction was communicated.  The particular signal, how it was given, whether it was visible or understandable, and the surrounding circumstances may all matter.

Section 89 defines a conveyance broadly enough to include an aircraft, although the stop signal examples in subsection 89(3) specifically describe vehicles and boats.  If an aircraft is involved, the exact communication relied on as the stop signal should be examined carefully.

Does the Conservation Officer Have to Show Identification?

A Conservation Officer acting under the enforcement provisions of the Act must produce identification when requested.  This requirement appears in subsection 87(3) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Section 89 does not state that the officer must always be in a marked enforcement vehicle or wearing a particular uniform before a stop duty can arise.  If you did not recognize the person as a Conservation Officer, however, the officer's appearance, vehicle, lights, identification, communications, and your opportunity to understand the signal can be important when the evidence and any mistake of fact defence are assessed.

Do You Have to Stop if You Were Not Hunting?

Potentially, yes.  Section 89 is not limited to stopping a person who is actively hunting.  The power applies where the Conservation Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that stopping the conveyance would assist in determining compliance with the Act or regulations.

The inspection may concern hunting, trapping, fishing, wildlife possession, transportation, licences, tags, firearms, wildlife in a vehicle or boat, or another matter governed by the Act.  The stop duty can apply even if you were not hunting and no wildlife was taken.

What Law Applies?

Section 89 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 is the principal provision for this charge.  Subsection 89(1) sets the threshold for a Conservation Officer to stop a conveyance, subsection 89(2) requires the operator to immediately stop on the officer's signal, and subsection 89(3) identifies examples of stop signals.

Subsection 89(1) governs when the stop power may be used, while subsection 89(2) creates the operator's duty to immediately stop on the Conservation Officer's signal.  The legality of the stop and the operator's response should therefore be assessed under the section 89 requirements.

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.

The express subsection 89(2) stop duty requires proof that you were the operator of the conveyance, that a Conservation Officer gave a signal to stop, and that you failed to immediately stop as required.  The officer's authority to exercise the section 89 stop power is governed by subsection 89(1), which requires reasonable grounds to believe that stopping the conveyance would assist in determining compliance with the Act or regulations.

The central issues therefore generally include:

• Your identity as the operator of the conveyance;
• The circumstances supporting the Conservation Officer's use of the section 89 stop power;
• Whether a signal to stop was given;
• What the signal communicated and when it could reasonably have been perceived; and
• Whether you failed to immediately stop after the signal.

The prosecution does not need to prove that an animal was killed or that the inspection ultimately uncovered another offence.  The failure to stop charge concerns compliance with the stop requirement itself.

Subsection 89(2) does not expressly make an intention to evade the officer part of the stop duty.  Questions about whether you saw, understood, or reasonably recognized the stop signal may instead be important when the evidence and the statutory defences are considered.

What Are Common Situations That Lead to This Charge?

The Operator Continued Driving After Emergency Lights Were Activated

A charge may arise where a Conservation Officer activated a vehicle stop signal and the vehicle continued travelling.  The evidence may need to establish when the signal began, when the operator could see it, how long or how far the vehicle continued, and what happened before the eventual stop.

The Operator Says the Stop Signal Was Not Seen

Weather, darkness, road conditions, traffic, distance, vehicle position, sight lines, or other circumstances may affect whether the signal was visible.  Dash camera footage, officer video, witness evidence, and the physical setting can be important.

The Operator Did Not Realize the Signal Was Directed at Them

A person may understand that enforcement lights or a hand signal were present but dispute that the signal was directed at their vehicle or boat.  The location of the officer, other traffic or boats, gestures, lights, and communications may help determine what the signal conveyed.

The Operator Did Not Recognize the Person as a Conservation Officer

This issue can arise where the officer was not immediately recognizable or where the encounter involved an unusual vehicle, clothing, location, or type of signal.  Identification evidence and the circumstances can be relevant to whether an honest and reasonable mistake of fact is supported.

The Operator Delayed Before Stopping

Subsection 89(2) uses the word immediately.  A case may therefore focus on whether the operator stopped without improper delay or continued travelling after having a reasonable opportunity to respond.  Safety conditions, the availability of a place to stop, the operator's actions, and communications with the officer may matter to the factual and defence analysis.

What Is the Fine?

The current set fine for failing to stop for a Conservation Officer under subsection 89(2) is $200.  A set fine is the preset fine used when a particular provincial offence is dealt with by ticket.

The set fine is different from the statutory maximum that can apply if the matter proceeds through court.  Under the general penalty provision of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, a person convicted of an offence under the Act may be liable to a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

Those are statutory maximums, not the automatic or usual result of an ordinary $200 ticket.  A court may also make a discretionary order under section 104 restricting a licence or authorization of a kind related to the offence where the statutory requirements are met.  The actual consequence depends on the circumstances and how the case is resolved.

What Evidence May Be Used?

The most important evidence usually concerns the legal basis for the stop, the stop signal, who was operating the conveyance, and what happened after the signal was given.

Officer Notes and Enforcement Records

Conservation Officer notes, reports, dispatch information, time records, and observations may be used to explain why the officer initiated the stop, what signal was given, how the conveyance responded, and when the stop was completed.

Video, Audio, and Photographs

Dash camera footage, officer video where available, vehicle or boat cameras, security footage, cell phone video, photographs, and audio recordings may help establish the signal, visibility, distance, timing, officer identification, and the operator's response.

Location and Movement Evidence

GPS records, mapping information, electronic location data, road or waterway information, and other movement records may help establish where the signal occurred, how far the conveyance travelled afterward, and where it eventually stopped.

Operator and Witness Evidence

Statements from the operator, passengers, other hunters or anglers, nearby witnesses, and officers may be used to address who was driving or operating, whether the signal was seen, what was understood, and what happened before and after the stop.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The defence depends on the facts and on whether the prosecution can prove the section 89 requirements.  The case should be reviewed using the actual stop evidence rather than assuming that continued movement automatically proves the offence.

The Section 89 Stop Power Was Not Lawfully Engaged

Subsection 89(1) requires reasonable grounds to believe that stopping the conveyance would assist in determining compliance with the Act or regulations.  If the circumstances relied on by the officer do not support that statutory threshold, the legal basis for the section 89 stop may be disputed.

No Stop Signal Was Given or the Signal Is Disputed

The prosecution must establish that a signal to stop was given.  Conflicting testimony, missing video, poor visibility, uncertain gestures, lighting problems, distance, or other circumstances may create a factual issue about the signal.

You Were Not the Operator

The duty in subsection 89(2) is imposed on the operator of the conveyance.  If identity is disputed, the evidence must establish that you were operating the vehicle, boat, or aircraft when the stop signal was given.

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 belief that the signal was directed at another conveyance or that the person giving an unusual signal was not a Conservation Officer may be relevant.

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.

Evidence that an operator responded promptly after recognizing the stop signal but needed to address an immediate safety condition before bringing the conveyance to a stop may be relevant.  There is no automatic exception simply because the operator preferred another stopping place, so the actual safety circumstances and actions taken should be examined carefully.

Could Property Be Seized or Forfeited?

Potentially, but seizure is not automatic merely because you were charged with failing to stop.  Under section 92 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, a Conservation Officer who is lawfully in a building or other place may seize a thing the officer believes on reasonable grounds was obtained by or used in an offence, will provide evidence of an offence, or is intermixed with such a thing.

Depending on the investigation, wildlife, firearms, hunting or fishing equipment, documents, electronic devices, or a conveyance may be relevant to a seizure decision if the statutory requirements are met.  Forfeiture means permanent loss of ownership and is legally different from seizure.  Whether forfeiture can occur depends on the particular property, the applicable statutory provision, and what happens in the case.

What Happens Next?

Your ticket or summons 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 officer notes, reports, video, photographs, dispatch information, witness statements, GPS or location evidence, and other investigative records.

After disclosure is available, compare the evidence with the exact requirements of section 89.  The review should focus on the circumstances supporting the stop, the signal that was given, whether you were the operator, when the signal could reasonably have been perceived, what you did in response, and whether a statutory defence or other legal issue is supported by the circumstances.

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 stop for conservation officer under subsection 89(2);
• The stop power applies to a conveyance, meaning a vehicle, boat, or aircraft;
• Subsection 89(1) requires reasonable grounds to believe the stop would assist in determining compliance with the Act or regulations;
• The prosecution must establish that you were the operator, a stop signal was given, and you failed to immediately stop as required;
• Current stop signals expressly include red or red and blue lights for a vehicle, blue lights for a boat, and a hand signal for a vehicle or boat;
• The current set fine is $200; and

Conclusion

A Failing to Stop for a Conservation Officer charge should be reviewed by examining the entire section 89 stop, not only the fact that a vehicle, boat, or aircraft continued moving.  The officer's authority to initiate the stop, the signal, the identity of the operator, the visibility and meaning of the signal, and the operator's response can all matter.

Before paying the ticket or entering a plea, review the charging document, disclosure, stop signal evidence, officer notes, video or location records, 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 to the charge.