Providing False Information to or Obstructing a Conservation Officer in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: September 13 2026

---

Question: I’m in Ontario and I received a summons for knowingly making a false statement to, or obstructing, a conservation officer under section 96 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997; what should I do next?

Answer: If you were charged in Ontario under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, you should read the summons carefully, note the exact section 96(a) or 96(b wording, and respond by the deadline, because these offences have different facts to prove and a conviction is not automatic.   Canada-wide calls are handled by DefendCharges.ca™ paralegals who can help you preserve evidence, document exactly what was said or done, and prepare a defence strategy tied to what the Conservation Officer alleges, not just the fact of a misunderstanding or poor memory.   For guidance specific to your documents and what evidence may exist (messages, photos, GPS, audio/video), call (647) 559-3377 for next steps.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Providing False Information to or Obstructing a Conservation Officer in Ontario

Received a ticket or summons for Providing False Information to or Obstructing a Conservation Officer in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario wildlife law.  The page title covers two separate offences under section 96 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997: knowingly making a false or misleading statement to a Conservation Officer acting under the Act, and otherwise obstructing a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.

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.  The two offences are different.  A false statement charge concerns what was said and whether it was knowingly false or misleading, while an obstruction charge concerns conduct said to have hindered a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.

This page explains the two section 96 offences, what a knowingly false or misleading statement means, what obstruction can involve, what must be proven, the current fine position and possible consequences, the evidence and legal issues that may matter, and what may happen next.  These offences are part of Conservation Officers & Investigations.

I Received a False Information or Obstruction 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 clause number on your documents.  The current Ontario Court of Justice Schedule 17.5 lists Make a false statement to a conservation officer under clause 96(a) and Obstruct conservation officer under clause 96(b).  Both entries are currently marked N.S.F., meaning no set fine is prescribed.

Record what happened while the details are still fresh.  Note where the interaction occurred, what the Conservation Officer was doing, what questions or directions were given, the exact words you remember using, what you did, who was present, and whether audio, video, messages, photographs, documents, GPS information, or other records may exist.

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

Should I Pay the Ticket?

Neither section 96 offence currently has a prescribed set fine.  If you received a summons, you must respond or attend as directed rather than treating the matter as an ordinary payable set fine ticket.  If you received another form of charging document, follow the instructions on that document and confirm the exact offence before taking any step that would amount to a guilty plea.

N.S.F.  does not mean there is no possible fine.  It means the Ontario Court of Justice schedule does not prescribe a set fine for the offence.  A court can still impose a sentence after conviction within the penalty provisions that apply under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

What Is a Providing False Information to or Obstructing a Conservation Officer Charge?

This is a plain English title covering the two prohibitions in section 96 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  Clause 96(a) prohibits knowingly making a false or misleading statement to a Conservation Officer who is acting under the Act.  Clause 96(b) separately prohibits otherwise obstructing a Conservation Officer who is acting under the Act.

Providing False or Misleading Information

The statutory wording is broader than the short form description Make a false statement to a conservation officer.  Clause 96(a) applies to a statement that is false or misleading and expressly requires that the person made the statement knowingly.

The charge can therefore involve two distinct factual questions: whether what was said was actually false or misleading, and whether you knew that when you made the statement.  An inaccurate answer caused by an honest mistake, misunderstanding, faulty memory, or confusion is not automatically a knowingly false or misleading statement.

Obstructing a Conservation Officer

Obstruct in this context means conduct that hinders or interferes with a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.  Clause 96(b) uses the words otherwise obstruct, distinguishing this branch from the knowingly false or misleading statement addressed in clause 96(a).

The exact conduct relied on by the prosecution should be identified.  Section 96(b) should not be treated as though disagreement, delay, silence, confusion, or an unsuccessful investigation automatically proves obstruction.  The evidence must establish conduct that amounted to obstructing the Conservation Officer while the officer was acting under the Act.

The exact clause on your documents should therefore be matched to the statement or conduct actually relied on by the prosecution.  Other Conservation Officer enforcement offences are organized under Conservation Officers & Investigations.

What Does "Knowingly" Mean for a False Statement Charge?

Knowingly means the prosecution must prove more than the fact that a statement later turned out to be wrong.  For clause 96(a), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly made a statement that was false or misleading.

The surrounding circumstances can therefore matter, including what you knew at the time, the wording of the question, what information was available to you, whether the conversation was clear, and whether the evidence supports an innocent mistake, misunderstanding, or faulty recollection.

What Can Count as a False or Misleading Statement?

The statement must be examined in the context in which it was made.  A false statement communicates something untrue, while a misleading statement can communicate an inaccurate impression even if the words are not a simple direct denial or admission.

Section 96(a) is not limited to one particular hunting topic.  Depending on the investigation, the statement may concern who was hunting, what wildlife was involved, where an animal was taken, who used particular equipment, what happened to wildlife or property, who was operating a vehicle or boat, or another fact connected with the officer's work under the Act.

The issue remains the statement actually relied on in the charge.  The prosecution must prove what you said, that the statement was false or misleading, and that you made it knowingly.

What Can Count as Obstructing a Conservation Officer?

An obstruction charge should be tied to specific conduct said to have hindered or interfered with a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.  Section 96(b) does not list every possible form of obstruction, so the facts of the encounter are important.

Depending on the circumstances, the prosecution may rely on conduct said to have interfered with an authorized inspection, search, seizure, stop, investigation, or another enforcement step.  The evidence may concern physical interference, preventing access where the officer had legal authority to act, concealing or moving something relevant to the officer's work, interfering with evidence or property, or other conduct said to have impeded the officer.

Not every difficult interaction is obstruction.  The prosecution still has to establish the conduct relied on, connect it to you, and prove that it amounted to obstructing a Conservation Officer who was acting under the Act.

Is This the Same as Failing to Stop, Produce Things, or Provide Information?

No.  Ontario wildlife law contains separate offences for several specific duties owed during Conservation Officer enforcement activity.  Subsection 89(2) separately addresses failing to stop and failing to produce things during a conveyance inspection, while subsection 90(8) separately addresses failing to provide information relevant to a section 90 inspection.

The existence of those specific offences matters when section 96(b) is charged.  A refusal, delay, silence, or failure to provide something should not automatically be labelled obstruction without examining the exact statutory duty, the conduct relied on, and the offence actually written on the ticket or summons.

Is This the Same as Making a False Statement in a Document?

No.  Making a false statement to a Conservation Officer under clause 96(a) is different from the separate offence involving a false statement in a document under subsection 82(3).  The current set fine schedule lists Make a false statement in a document under subsection 82(3) with a $400 set fine, while the section 96(a) Conservation Officer offence is currently listed as N.S.F.

If your documents refer to subsection 82(3) rather than clause 96(a), the charge should be analyzed under the provision actually alleged.  The two offences should not be treated as interchangeable merely because both can involve false information.

Does the Conservation Officer Have to Be Acting Under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act?

Yes.  Both branches of section 96 expressly require that the Conservation Officer was acting under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  The officer's role, the enforcement activity being carried out, and the authority relied on may therefore matter where the basis for the interaction is disputed.

A Conservation Officer acting under Part VIII must also produce identification when requested.  If the identity or authority of the person was genuinely unclear, evidence about identification, uniforms, vehicles, communications, and any request for identification may be relevant to the case.

What Law Applies?

Section 96 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 is the principal provision for these charges.  Clause 96(a) prohibits knowingly making a false or misleading statement to a Conservation Officer acting under the Act, and clause 96(b) prohibits otherwise obstructing a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.

The exact clause matters because clause 96(a) expressly includes a knowledge requirement, while clause 96(b) addresses obstruction without using that same wording.  The charge should therefore be analyzed under the clause actually shown on your documents.

What Must Be Proven?

The prosecutor, meaning the lawyer or representative presenting the government's case, must prove every required part of the particular 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.

False or Misleading Statement Under Clause 96(a)

For a clause 96(a) charge, the important issues generally include:

• Your identity as the person who made the statement;
• That the person receiving the statement was a Conservation Officer;
• That the Conservation Officer was acting under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997;
• What statement you made;
• That the statement was false or misleading; and
• That you knowingly made the false or misleading statement.

The knowledge requirement is significant.  Proof that a statement was inaccurate does not by itself establish that you knowingly made a false or misleading statement.

Obstruction Under Clause 96(b)

For a clause 96(b) charge, the important issues generally include:

• Your identity as the person who engaged in the conduct;
• That the person affected by the conduct was a Conservation Officer;
• That the Conservation Officer was acting under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997; and
• That the conduct proved against you amounted to obstructing the Conservation Officer.

Clause 96(b) does not repeat the word knowingly used in clause 96(a).  The two branches should therefore not be presented as having identical statutory elements.  The conduct, circumstances, applicable enforcement authority, and statutory defences should be assessed using the clause actually charged.

What Are Common Situations That Lead to These Charges?

A Statement About Who Hunted or Handled Wildlife Is Disputed

A charge may arise where a Conservation Officer says a person knowingly gave false or misleading information about who hunted, shot, captured, possessed, transported, or handled wildlife.  The exact question, answer, surrounding conversation, and other evidence may be important.

A Statement About Location, Timing, or Hunting Activity Is Disputed

The prosecution may rely on a statement about where hunting occurred, when an animal was taken, what equipment was used, or what happened during a hunt.  Maps, GPS information, photographs, messages, witness evidence, and officer notes may be compared with the statement.

Conduct Is Said to Have Interfered with an Inspection or Search

An obstruction charge may arise where the prosecution says a person hindered an authorized inspection or search.  The officer's authority, the conduct involved, what directions or requests were made, and whether the conduct amounted to obstruction can all matter.

Evidence or Property Is Said to Have Been Moved, Hidden, or Interfered With

A charge may involve an accusation that conduct interfered with evidence, wildlife, documents, equipment, or other property relevant to the officer's work.  The prosecution must still prove what happened, who was responsible, and how the conduct amounted to obstruction.

There Was Confusion About What the Officer Was Asking or Requiring

Some cases arise from fast moving or stressful interactions in which the parties disagree about what was asked, said, or required.  Audio, video, witness evidence, the wording of a direction, and the timing of events can be important when determining whether the charge is proven.

What Is the Fine?

There is currently no prescribed set fine for either section 96 offence.  The current Ontario Court of Justice Schedule 17.5 lists N.S.F. for Make a false statement to a conservation officer under clause 96(a) and for Obstruct conservation officer under clause 96(b).

N.S.F. means that no set fine is prescribed in the schedule.  It does not mean the offence carries no possible fine or other sentence after conviction.

Under the general penalty provision in section 102 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 automatic sentences.  The actual result depends on the offence, circumstances, evidence, and how the case is resolved.

Can a Conviction Affect a Licence or Authorization?

Potentially, but a licence or authorization restriction is not automatic merely because you have been charged or convicted under section 96.  Under subsection 104(2), a court may after conviction restrict a licence or authorization of a kind related to the offence and prohibit the activity requiring that licence or authorization for the period specified by the court.

If the court makes that order for a kind of licence or authorization you already hold, subsection 104(3) requires the court to order it cancelled.  Whether this is realistically relevant depends on how the section 96 offence is connected to the hunting, fishing, trapping, or other licensed activity involved.

What Evidence May Be Used?

The most important evidence usually concerns what was said or done, the context of the Conservation Officer's work, and whether the prosecution can prove the required knowledge or obstruction.

Officer Notes, Reports, and Statements

Conservation Officer notes, occurrence reports, interview notes, inspection records, and testimony may be used to establish what the officer asked, what you allegedly said or did, why the officer was acting under the Act, and how the interaction unfolded.

Audio, Video, and Photographs

Officer video where available, dash camera footage, security footage, cell phone recordings, audio recordings, and photographs can be especially important where the exact wording of a statement, direction, response, or physical interaction is disputed.

Documents and Electronic Records

Messages, photographs, GPS data, mapping records, licence or tag records, receipts, hunting records, digital communications, and other documents may be compared with a statement to determine whether it was accurate and what the person may have known at the time.

Physical and Seized Evidence

Wildlife, firearms, hunting equipment, vehicles, documents, electronic devices, or other seized property may be used to test the accuracy of a statement or establish the circumstances surrounding an obstruction charge.

Witness Evidence

Other hunters, passengers, property occupants, employees, witnesses, or officers may give evidence about what was said, what happened, who was involved, and the conduct relied on as obstruction.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The defence depends on whether the charge is under clause 96(a) or clause 96(b) and on the exact evidence relied on by the prosecution.  The two offences should not be analyzed as though they have identical elements.

The Statement Was Not False or Misleading

A clause 96(a) charge cannot be established merely because the officer disagreed with your answer.  The prosecution must prove that the statement itself was false or misleading.  Documents, recordings, location evidence, witnesses, or other records may support or contradict the statement.

You Did Not Know the Statement Was False or Misleading

The word knowingly is an express part of clause 96(a).  An honest mistake, faulty recollection, misunderstanding of the question, or other evidence showing that you did not know the statement was false or misleading may create a significant issue in the prosecution's case.

The Statement or Conduct Was Not Yours

Identity may be disputed where several people were present, the conversation was not recorded, an officer attributed a statement to the wrong person, or the conduct relied on as obstruction could have been committed by someone else.  The prosecution must connect the charged statement or conduct to you.

The Conservation Officer Was Not Acting Under the Act

Both clauses require the Conservation Officer to have been acting under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  If the legal basis or character of the officer's activity is genuinely disputed, that issue may affect whether section 96 applies.

The Conduct Did Not Amount to Obstruction

A difficult, argumentative, delayed, confused, or uncooperative interaction does not automatically establish clause 96(b).  The prosecution must prove conduct that amounted to obstructing the Conservation Officer while the officer was acting under the Act.

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 charge, a reasonable factual mistake about what occurred, what an officer was requiring, whether something had already been done, or another material fact may be relevant.

Due Diligence

Due diligence means taking all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the offence.  Section 101 recognizes this statutory defence.  Its practical importance depends on the particular branch of section 96 and the facts, especially because clause 96(a) separately requires proof that the false or misleading statement was made knowingly.

Could Property Be Seized or Forfeited?

Potentially, but seizure is not automatic merely because you were charged under section 96.  Section 92 allows a Conservation Officer who is lawfully in a building or other place to 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 underlying investigation, wildlife, firearms, documents, electronic devices, vehicles, or other property may be relevant to a seizure.  Seizure means property has been taken into official custody.  Forfeiture means permanent loss of ownership and depends on the applicable statutory requirements 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, audio, video, photographs, interview records, witness statements, documents, electronic records, and evidence from the underlying wildlife investigation.

For a clause 96(a) charge, the review should focus on the exact statement, whether it was false or misleading, what you knew at the time, and the circumstances in which it was made.  For a clause 96(b) charge, the review should focus on the officer's activity under the Act, the exact conduct relied on as obstruction, and whether the evidence proves that conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

• Section 96 contains two separate offences: knowingly making a false or misleading statement to a Conservation Officer and otherwise obstructing a Conservation Officer;
• Both offences require the Conservation Officer to have been acting under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997;
• A clause 96(a) charge requires proof that the statement was false or misleading and that you made it knowingly;
• A clause 96(b) charge requires proof that the conduct proved against you amounted to obstructing the Conservation Officer;
• The current Ontario Court of Justice schedule lists no set fine for either section 96 offence;
• The general statutory maximum is a $25,000 fine, imprisonment for up to one year, or both; and
• The exact statement, conduct, officer authority, recordings, documents, witnesses, and surrounding investigation should be reviewed before deciding how to respond.

Conclusion

A Providing False Information to or Obstructing a Conservation Officer charge should be reviewed by first identifying whether the prosecution relies on clause 96(a), clause 96(b), or both.  A false statement charge turns on the statement, whether it was false or misleading, and whether it was made knowingly, while an obstruction charge turns on the conduct and whether it amounted to obstructing a Conservation Officer acting under the Act.

Before entering a plea or otherwise resolving the charge, review the charging document, disclosure, officer notes, recordings, statements, documents, physical evidence, possible consequences, and any defence or legal issue supported by the circumstances.  Legal representation can help determine whether the evidence proves the particular offence and what options are available for responding.