Interfering With or Posting False Hunting Notices in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: September 13 2026

---

Question: What should I do if I was ticketed in Ontario for interfering with or posting a false hunting notice?

Answer: If you received an Ontario provincial offences ticket or summons for interfering with or posting false hunting notices, review the exact offence wording and subsection on the document, track evidence about who controlled the property and who placed or altered the sign or marking, and confirm whether you had authority to purport to give the prohibition notice; paying the ticket is usually treated as a guilty plea, so you should consider a defence review before deciding your next step.  DefendCharges.ca™ can help a paralegal assess whether the Crown can prove the required facts for the correct Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 charge, including authority for the notice, and explain likely next steps and options in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Call (647) 559-3377 to discuss your matter in Ontario.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices in Ontario

Received a ticket or summons for Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario wildlife law, meaning an Ontario offence dealt with through the provincial offences court process.  The charge involves a hunting prohibition notice, sign, or marking.  It may concern interfering with a protected hunting notice or representing that hunting or entry for hunting is prohibited when you did not have authority to give that notice.

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 page title covers two legally different offences, and false hunting notice is plain English shorthand.  For the unauthorized notice offence, the important legal question is whether you had authority to give the notice, not simply whether the words on the notice were factually true or false.

This page explains the two offences covered by this title, what kind of hunting notice is involved, what must be proven, the current set fines and possible consequences, the evidence and legal issues that may matter, and what may happen next.  These offences are part of Property & Restricted Area Charges.

I Received an Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices 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 Ontario Court of Justice uses two different short form descriptions that may fall within this page: Interfere with notice under subsection 10(3) and Unlawfully purport to give notice under subsection 13(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Record what happened while the details are still fresh.  Note the property or location, what the notice, sign, or marking communicated, who placed or controlled it, what you did, who was present, and whether photographs, video, messages, maps, or property records may exist.

Keep the documents and records already available to you that may help explain the incident.  This may include photographs, video, messages, property records, surveys, maps, written permission, authorizations, and photographs of the sign or marking.  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, identify which offence is actually written on the ticket and review the notice, property, authority, and conduct involved.

The set fine depends on which offence was charged.  Interfering with a notice and unlawfully purporting to give notice have different set fines, and a ticket set fine is different from the maximum penalty a court may impose after conviction.

What Is an Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices Charge?

Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices is a plain English title covering two separate offences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  One offence protects certain signs and markings that lawfully give notice about hunting or entry for hunting.  The other prohibits a person from purporting to give a hunting prohibition notice without authority.

Interfering with a Hunting Notice

Subsection 10(3) prohibits interfering with signs or markings that, under the Trespass to Property Act, give notice that hunting or fishing is prohibited or that entry is prohibited for the purpose of hunting or fishing.  The charge therefore depends on both what the sign or marking communicated and what you are accused of doing to it.

Depending on the facts, interference may involve removing, covering, altering, damaging, defacing, moving, or otherwise interfering with the protected sign or marking.  The prosecution still has to connect the conduct described in the charge to you.

Giving a Hunting Notice Without Authority

Subsection 13(2) prohibits a person from purporting to give notice that entry to premises is prohibited for hunting or fishing, or that hunting or fishing is prohibited on the premises, unless the person has authority to give the notice.  In this context, premises means the property or place the notice is said to cover.  Purporting to give notice means representing or holding out that the prohibition applies.

Posting a sign can be one way of giving the notice, but the statutory wording is not limited to a physical sign.  The phrase false hunting notice in the page title should not be read as requiring proof that words written on a sign were factually false.  The issue under subsection 13(2) is the prohibited notice and the person's authority to give it.

What Kind of Sign or Marking Is Protected?

For a subsection 10(3) charge, the sign or marking must be one that gives the specified notice under the Trespass to Property Act.  That Act allows notice to be given in several ways, including by clearly visible signs and by its statutory marking system.

The protected sign or marking must communicate that hunting or fishing is prohibited or that entry is prohibited for the purpose of hunting or fishing.  A sign about a different subject does not become a subsection 10(3) hunting notice merely because it is located on property where hunting occurs.

The Trespass to Property Act also provides that substantial compliance with its sign or marking requirements is sufficient notice.  Substantial compliance means the notice can still be legally sufficient even if every technical detail is not perfect.  The actual sign, marking, placement, visibility, and message should be reviewed before relying on a technical notice issue.

Who Can Have Authority to Give a Hunting Notice?

Authority depends on the premises and the legal basis for the notice.  On private property, evidence about who occupied or controlled the premises and whether another person was authorized to act for that occupier may be important.

On Crown land, subsection 10(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 allows the Minister to authorize a person to give notice for the purposes of the Trespass to Property Act with respect to hunting or fishing.  An authorization given under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 must be in writing.

If you rely on authority to give the notice, identify where that authority came from and what land and activity it covered.  Property records, occupancy information, written authorization, agreements, instructions, and communications may be important depending on the circumstances.

What Law Applies?

The two principal provisions are subsections 10(3) and 13(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  The Trespass to Property Act is also relevant because subsection 10(3) protects signs and markings that give the specified notice under that Act.

Subsection 10(3) concerns interference with an existing protected sign or marking.  Subsection 13(2) concerns purporting to give a hunting or entry prohibition notice without authority.  The two offences should not be treated as interchangeable because their required facts and current set fines are different.

What Must Be Proven?

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

Interfering with a Notice Under Subsection 10(3)

The prosecution will generally need to establish that you were the person responsible for the conduct, that a sign or marking existed, that the sign or marking gave the type of notice protected by subsection 10(3) under the Trespass to Property Act, and that you interfered with it.

The protected notice must concern either a prohibition on hunting or fishing or a prohibition on entry for the purpose of hunting or fishing.  Evidence about what the sign or marking communicated, where it was located, and what happened to it may therefore be central to the charge.

Unlawfully Purporting to Give Notice Under Subsection 13(2)

The prosecution will generally need to establish that you were the person who purported to give notice and that the notice represented that entry to the premises was prohibited for the purpose of hunting or fishing or that hunting or fishing was prohibited on the premises.

The offence is written so that lawful authority can operate in your favour.  Under the Provincial Offences Act, the burden of proving that an authorization, exception, exemption, or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of a defendant generally rests on the defendant.  In practical terms, if your defence depends on having authority to give the notice, evidence establishing that authority can be critical.

Neither subsection 10(3) nor subsection 13(2) expressly requires proof that you intended to deceive a hunter or actually stop a hunt.  The case should be analyzed using the legal requirements of the offence written on your ticket rather than adding an intent or result that the provision does not state.

Does a Hunter Have to Be Prevented from Hunting?

No.  Neither offence requires proof that a hunter was actually prevented from hunting or that an animal was killed, injured, or disturbed.  The focus is the protected sign or marking under subsection 10(3), or the unauthorized giving of the prohibited notice under subsection 13(2).

A hunter's reaction can still be evidence in a particular case.  For example, it may help show what a notice communicated, where it was displayed, or what happened after it was encountered.  The reaction itself is not a substitute for proving the elements of the offence.

What Are Common Situations That Lead to This Charge?

These charges often arise from disputes about property access, hunting restrictions, signs, boundary markings, or who had authority to control hunting on the premises.

A No Hunting Sign Was Removed, Covered, or Altered

A person may be charged after a sign or marking prohibiting hunting or entry for hunting was removed, covered, changed, damaged, or otherwise interfered with.  The evidence may need to establish that the sign or marking was protected by subsection 10(3) and connect the person charged to the interference.

A Hunting Prohibition Was Posted Without Authority

A subsection 13(2) charge may arise where a person posted or communicated a hunting prohibition on premises despite a dispute about whether they had authority to control hunting access there.  The source and scope of any claimed authority may be central to the case.

There Was a Boundary or Property Control Dispute

A notice may have been placed near a disputed property line or in an area where different people claimed control.  Surveys, maps, occupancy information, agreements, and communications may help establish the premises involved and whether the person giving the notice had authority over that location.

Someone Believed They Were Acting for the Person Controlling the Property

A person may have placed or maintained a notice because they believed they were acting for the person controlling the premises.  The evidence may need to address whether that authority actually existed and whether an honest and reasonable factual mistake about authority is supported by the circumstances.

What Is the Fine?

There are two different current set fines because this page covers two separate offences.  A set fine is the preset fine used when a particular provincial offence is dealt with by ticket.

• $200 for Interfere with notice under subsection 10(3); and
• $150 for Unlawfully purport to give notice under subsection 13(2).

The set fine is not necessarily the total amount payable shown on a ticket.  It should also not be confused with the maximum penalty a court may impose after conviction.

Under the general penalty provision of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, a person convicted of either offence may be liable to a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

Those are maximum penalties, not the automatic or usual result of an ordinary ticket.  The actual sentence or other consequence depends on the circumstances and how the case is resolved.

What Evidence May Be Used?

The most important evidence usually identifies the notice, the property or location, what you did, and who had authority over the premises.  The evidence needed for an interference charge can differ from the evidence needed for an unauthorized notice charge.

The Notice, Sign, or Marking

The actual sign or marking, photographs of it, its wording or symbols, placement, condition, and location may be central evidence.  This material can help show what notice was being given, whether it concerned hunting or entry for hunting, and what allegedly happened to it.

Property and Authority Evidence

Property records, occupancy records, leases, written authorizations, maps, surveys, agreements, and communications may help establish who controlled the premises and whether a person had authority to give the notice.  Where an authorization under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 is relied on, the written authorization and the area and activity it covers should be reviewed.

Officer and Witness Evidence

Conservation Officer or police notes, observations, photographs, recordings, and witness statements may be used to establish who was present, who posted or interfered with the notice, what was said about authority, and the condition of the sign or marking.

Electronic and Location Evidence

Cell phone photographs, video, messages, emails, social media posts, GPS records, security footage, trail camera footage, and other electronic records may help establish timing, location, identity, or the context in which a notice was posted, changed, or interfered with.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The defence depends first on which offence was actually charged.  A legal issue that matters to subsection 10(3) may be irrelevant to subsection 13(2), so the ticket wording and evidence should be matched to the correct provision.

The Sign or Marking Was Not a Protected Notice

For a subsection 10(3) charge, the prosecution must connect the sign or marking to notice under the Trespass to Property Act that hunting or fishing was prohibited or that entry was prohibited for that purpose.  The issue may be whether the sign or marking communicated the required prohibition and substantially complied with the notice rules.

The Evidence Does Not Establish Interference

Being near a sign, disagreeing with it, photographing it, or knowing it existed does not by itself establish interference.  The prosecution still has to connect you to conduct that interfered with the protected sign or marking.

You Did Not Purport to Give the Prohibited Notice

For a subsection 13(2) charge, the evidence must establish that you represented or held out that hunting or fishing was prohibited, or that entry was prohibited for that purpose.  A communication that does not amount to that kind of notice may raise a legal or factual issue about whether the provision applies.

You Had Authority to Give the Notice

If authority is relied on, the evidence should identify the legal or factual source of that authority, the premises it covered, and whether it applied when the notice was given.  A claim of authority should be supported by the best available records rather than assumed from a general connection to the property.

Identification or Context Is Disputed

The evidence may not reliably establish who posted, moved, covered, changed, damaged, or otherwise interfered with a notice.  Conflicting witnesses, missing footage, location evidence, or proof that several people had access to the sign or location may affect whether the charge is proven.

Due Diligence

Due diligence means taking all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the offence.  Section 101 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 provides a defence where the person charged establishes that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.  Whether that defence is realistic depends on the steps taken and the circumstances.

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 also recognizes this defence.  A factual mistake about authority, a property boundary, who controlled the premises, or the nature of a sign may be relevant if the requirements of the defence are met.

Could Property Be Seized or Forfeited?

Potentially, but seizure or forfeiture is not automatic in every hunting notice case.  A seizure means property has been taken into official custody.  Where the statutory requirements are met, a Conservation Officer who is lawfully in a place may seize a thing believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained by or used in an offence, to provide evidence of an offence, or to be intermixed with such a thing.

In a notice investigation, a disputed sign, notice, or another item connected with the charge could potentially be seized as evidence.  Forfeiture means permanent loss of ownership and is legally different from seizure.  After conviction, a court may order forfeiture of other property seized in connection with the offence where the Act permits.

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, witness statements, photographs, video, property information, electronic records, and other investigative material.

After disclosure is available, compare the evidence with the exact offence.  For subsection 10(3), the review should focus on whether the sign or marking was protected by the provision and whether the evidence proves interference.  For subsection 13(2), the review should focus on what notice was purportedly given and what evidence supports any authority relied on.

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

• This page covers two separate offences: interfering with a protected hunting notice under subsection 10(3) and unlawfully purporting to give a hunting prohibition notice under subsection 13(2);
• For subsection 10(3), the sign or marking must give the kind of hunting or entry notice protected by the Act;
• For subsection 13(2), the important legal issue is authority to give the notice, not merely whether the notice could be described as false;
• The current set fine is $200 for interfering with a notice and $150 for unlawfully purporting to give notice;
• Neither offence requires proof that an animal was killed or that a hunter was actually prevented from hunting; and
• The exact charge, notice, property and authority evidence, and disclosure should be reviewed before deciding how to respond.

Conclusion

An Interfering with or Posting False Hunting Notices charge should be reviewed using the exact offence wording on the ticket or summons.  Interfering with a protected sign or marking under subsection 10(3) is legally different from purporting to give a hunting prohibition notice without authority under subsection 13(2), and the two offences have different set fines and proof issues.

Before paying the ticket or entering a plea, review the notice, property or location, your connection to the conduct in the charge, any authority you relied on, the disclosure, 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 to the charge.