Abandoning Deer Meat (Wanton Waste) in Ontario:

I Received a Ticket or Summons.  What Should I Do?

Read every document carefully and do not miss the response deadline or court date. Paying a ticket will usually be treated as pleading guilty and will result in a conviction without a trial.  A summons is not an ordinary payable ticket and must be answered in the manner stated.

Before deciding how to respond, check:

• The exact wording and section number of every charge;
• Whether the allegation concerns abandonment, spoilage, or both;
• When and where the deer was shot, recovered, transported, stored, and found;
• Who killed, tagged, field-dressed, transported, stored, or processed the deer;
• What flesh was allegedly left behind or allowed to spoil;
• What recovery and preservation efforts were made; and
• Whether wildlife or other property was seized.

Keep your ticket or summons, Deer Tag, Licence Summary, photographs, messages, GPS records, weather information, receipts, processor communications, repair records, and seizure documents.  If an investigation is underway, avoid altering or disposing of relevant meat or records except in accordance with official instructions or legal advice.

Consider obtaining legal advice before paying a ticket, entering a plea, or giving an additional written or recorded statement.

Should I Pay the Ticket?

Paying the ticket will generally be treated as a guilty plea and will result in a conviction. Before paying, confirm whether the ticket alleges abandonment under section 36(1), spoilage under section 36(2), or another offence.

The two section 36 allegations are legally distinct.  One focuses on the hunter or trapper who killed and abandoned the wildlife; the other focuses on a person who possessed hunted or trapped wildlife and permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

If several tickets arose from the same incident, paying one ticket does not resolve the others.  Review the wording, section number, response deadline, and possible consequences of every charge before deciding how to respond.

What Is Abandoning Deer Meat?

An abandonment allegation generally claims that a hunter killed a deer and left it in circumstances where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

The allegation may arise where a hunter is accused of:

• Leaving the entire carcass at or near the kill site;
• Removing the antlers, head, hide, or selected cuts and leaving edible flesh;
• Leaving a recovered deer exposed to warm temperatures for an extended period;
• Discarding a carcass without first recovering usable meat;
• Leaving meat at a camp or property without arranging for its care; or
• Failing to return for a deer after allegedly leaving it temporarily.

The prosecutor does not necessarily have to prove that the flesh had already spoiled when the deer was abandoned.  Section 36(1) addresses abandonment where the flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

The wording still matters.  The prosecutor must prove that the accused was a hunter or trapper who killed the wildlife and then abandoned it in the circumstances prohibited by law.

What Does Wanton Waste Mean?

Wanton waste is a common hunting expression for unnecessarily leaving edible wildlife behind or allowing usable meat to spoil.

It is a useful everyday description, but it is not the wording used in section 36.  The actual allegation may concern a hunter or trapper abandoning killed game wildlife where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption, or a person possessing hunted or trapped game wildlife and permitting its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

The ticket or summons should be reviewed for the exact offence wording and legal subsection.  Calling a case “wanton waste” does not remove the prosecutor’s obligation to prove the elements of the offence actually charged.

What Is the Difference Between Abandonment and Spoilage?

Abandonment and spoilage are related but legally distinct allegations.

Abandonment focuses on a hunter or trapper who killed the game wildlife and then left it where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

Spoilage focuses on a person who possessed hunted or trapped game wildlife and permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.  That person is not necessarily the hunter who killed the deer.

The distinction may be important where one person harvested the deer but another person agreed to transport, cool, process, store, or distribute the meat.  The evidence must establish the individual responsibility of the person charged.

Being part of the hunting group, living at the residence, or having access to a shared camp, vehicle, cooler, or freezer does not automatically prove possession, control, abandonment, or responsibility for spoilage.

What Law Applies?

Section 36 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 contains the principal rules concerning abandoned and spoiled game meat.

Section 36(1) provides that a hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal must not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

Section 36(2) provides that a person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped must not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

Game wildlife means wildlife classified for regulated hunting, including game mammals and game birds.  White-tailed deer are game mammals and big game; big game includes black bear, woodland caribou, white-tailed deer, American elk, and moose.

Furbearing mammals include animals such as beaver, otter, mink, marten, fisher, and muskrat.  White-tailed deer are not furbearing mammals, so subsections 36(1) and 36(2) may apply to harvested deer and deer meat.

These are regulatory offences—offences created by legislation to regulate conduct.  The prosecutor may not have to prove mens rea—Latin for “guilty mind,” meaning the legally required mental element—in the same way required for many criminal offences.

Section 101 of the Act provides that a person shall not be convicted if the person establishes either that they exercised all due diligence—all reasonable care in the circumstances—to prevent the offence or that they honestly and reasonably believed in facts that, if true, would make the conduct innocent.

The precise application of that defence depends on the evidence.  Simply not knowing the law or no longer wanting the meat is not necessarily a defence.

What Must Be Proven?

The prosecutor must prove every required element of the particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove innocence.

For an allegation under section 36(1), the prosecutor will generally try to prove:

• The accused person’s identity;
• That the person was a hunter or trapper;
• That the person killed the deer;
• That the person abandoned the deer;
• That its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption; and
• The date, location, and other circumstances required by the charge.

For an allegation under section 36(2), the prosecutor will generally try to prove:

• The accused person’s identity;
• That the person possessed the hunted deer or deer meat;
• That the wildlife was game wildlife and not a furbearing mammal;
• That the person permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption; and
• The date, location, and other circumstances required by the charge.

The prosecution evidence must connect the person charged to the relevant conduct.  The discovery of a carcass near a camp, meat in a shared freezer, or spoiled packages bearing no reliable identification may not by itself establish who killed, possessed, abandoned, or controlled the deer.

Does the Deer Meat Have to Be Completely Spoiled?

Not necessarily.  The answer depends on whether the charge alleges abandonment or spoilage.

For abandonment, section 36(1) refers to leaving killed game wildlife where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.  For spoilage, section 36(2) refers to permitting the flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

The condition of the flesh may be assessed through its appearance, odour, texture, temperature, decomposition, contamination, insect activity, and the amount of time between harvesting, recovery, cooling, and inspection.

An unattractive carcass or unpleasant smell does not automatically resolve every legal issue.  The evidence must address the condition required by the subsection charged, the relevant time, and the person’s connection to the deer.

Which Parts of a Deer Must Be Recovered?

Section 36 focuses on flesh and whether it may become or has become unsuitable for human consumption.  It does not say that every part of a deer must be eaten, retained, or processed.

An investigation may consider whether usable meat from the shoulders, hindquarters, backstraps, tenderloins, neck, ribs, or other portions was left behind.  The evidence may also need to distinguish edible flesh from:

• Bones, hide, hooves, antlers, and other non-edible remains;
• Tissue extensively damaged by the projectile;
• Meat contaminated by stomach or intestinal contents;
• Diseased, decomposed, or otherwise unsafe tissue; and
• Portions damaged by predators, scavengers, chemicals, or another hazard.

Photographs, packaged-meat weights, carcass inspection, and evidence from a butcher or processor may help establish what was recovered and whether allegedly discarded flesh remained suitable for food.

What if a Wounded Deer Could Not Be Found?

A hunter is not automatically guilty merely because a wounded deer was not recovered. An abandonment allegation under section 36(1) requires proof that the hunter killed the game wildlife.  The investigation may therefore focus on whether the deer died, what the hunter knew, and what happened after the shot.

Recovery evidence may include blood, hair, tracks, bone or tissue, GPS routes, search times, messages requesting help, witness accounts, weather, terrain, darkness, and whether the search resumed later.

An unsuccessful search may be different from knowingly leaving a dead deer that could reasonably have been recovered.  However, a wounded deer crossing onto neighbouring property does not automatically give a hunter permission to enter.  Attempts to contact the owner or occupier and obtain lawful access should be documented.

A separate charge for Hunting Without Permission may arise if a hunter enters or hunts on land without the permission required in the circumstances. Trespassing While Hunting may involve entering or remaining on property after notice has been given that entry or hunting is prohibited.

What if the Meat Spoiled Because Equipment Failed?

A freezer, refrigerator, generator, vehicle, or power failure does not automatically prove or excuse an offence. The timing, foreseeability of the problem, precautions taken, and response after discovery may all matter.

Relevant evidence may include:

• When the meat was placed in the equipment;
• Whether the equipment had been operating properly;
• Temperature, alarm, generator, or power-outage records;
• Repair invoices and technician reports;
• Attempts to obtain ice, alternate refrigeration, or immediate processing;
• Photographs showing the equipment and condition of the meat; and
• How quickly the problem was discovered and addressed.

A sudden and unforeseeable failure followed by prompt reasonable action may raise different issues from leaving meat in equipment known to be unreliable or taking no action after discovering that the meat was warming or thawing.

Can Someone Other Than the Hunter Be Charged?

Yes.  Section 36(2) applies to a person who possesses hunted game wildlife and permits its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

A non-hunter may be investigated if that person allegedly accepted responsibility for transporting, cooling, processing, storing, or distributing the deer.  Evidence about keys, freezer access, labels, communications, storage arrangements, and statements may be used to argue that a person had knowledge, custody, or control.

Possession is a legal and factual issue.  Merely attending the camp, travelling in the vehicle, living at the property, or being related to the hunter does not automatically establish possession or responsibility for the condition of the meat.

What Common Situations Lead to This Charge?

Abandonment or spoilage allegations may arise where:

• A hunter removed the antlers and left most of the carcass;
• A deer was left at the kill site while the hunter says assistance was being arranged;
• A wounded deer was later found after recovery efforts ended;
• A carcass remained in warm weather, a vehicle, garage, or camp;
• A freezer, power supply, vehicle, or processing arrangement failed;
• Only selected cuts were retained while other flesh was discarded; or
• Spoiled meat was discovered in a shared cooler, freezer, or storage location.

A common situation is not proof of guilt.  The prosecutor must still prove the specific offence and the accused person’s legal responsibility.

What Is the Fine?

There is no single guaranteed result for every abandoning-deer-meat case. A set fine is the fine assigned when an offence is dealt with by ticket.  The ticket should identify the set fine for the offence alleged.

The total payable amount may be higher after the victim fine surcharge—an additional amount imposed by provincial law—and applicable court costs are added.

The current Ontario set-fine schedule lists a $150 set fine for “Abandon flesh suitable for food” under section 36(1) and a $150 set fine for “Waste flesh suitable for food” under section 36(2).  The wording and section number on the ticket determine which offence is alleged.

If the charge proceeds by summons or the matter goes before a court, the result may depend on the precise offence, the amount and condition of the flesh, the accused person’s conduct, any prior record, related charges, and the orders sought by the prosecutor.

Under section 102(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, the general maximum penalty for an individual convicted of an offence under the Act is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. These are statutory maximums, not the automatic or usual result in every case.

A conviction may also affect hunting privileges or seized property where authorized by law.  See Hunting Licence Suspensions.

What Evidence May Be Used?

These cases often depend on who killed or controlled the deer, what happened to it, and whether edible flesh was abandoned or permitted to become unsuitable.

Recovery and Location Evidence

• Blood trails, tracks, GPS routes, search times, maps, and photographs;
• Weather, terrain, property boundaries, and access conditions; and
• Messages, calls, and witness accounts about recovery efforts.

Meat Condition and Preservation Evidence

• Photographs, video, odour, appearance, temperature, and decomposition;
• Contamination, insect activity, scavenger damage, and carcass condition;
• Ice purchases, refrigeration records, power information, and repair invoices; and
• Butcher, processor, veterinary, food-safety, or laboratory evidence.

Identity, Possession, and Hunting Evidence

• Conservation Officer observations, notes, reports, and recordings;
• Statements from hunters, property owners, processors, or other witnesses;
• Tags, Licence Summaries, hunter reports, and hunting-group communications; and
• Vehicle, camp, cooler, freezer, key, label, and storage evidence.

No single item necessarily proves the charge.  Reliability, timing, context, continuity, and the connection between the evidence and the person charged must be examined.

Disclosure is the evidence the prosecutor intends to rely upon.  Requesting and reviewing disclosure may help identify what evidence supports each required element and whether relevant records are missing.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The available defence depends on the subsection charged and the evidence. Possible issues may include:

• The accused did not kill or abandon the deer;
• The accused did not possess or control the deer meat;
• The deer was temporarily left while recovery assistance, equipment, transportation, or lawful access was obtained;
• The evidence did not prove that the hunter killed or abandoned the wounded deer;
• The allegedly discarded portions were not flesh suitable for human consumption;
• Reasonable recovery or preservation steps were taken despite an unexpected event; or
• The identification, timing, temperature, meat-condition, or individual-responsibility evidence was unreliable.

Section 101 may also prevent conviction if the accused establishes due diligence—the taking of all reasonable care to prevent the offence—or an honest and reasonable belief in facts that, if true, would make the conduct innocent.  Its application depends on the precise charge and evidence.

The legality of a stop, search, seizure, inspection, or statement may require separate review.  A legal professional can assess the disclosure and identify which issues are supported by the evidence.

Could the Deer or Other Property Be Seized or Forfeited?

Yes.  A Conservation Officer may seize wildlife or other property where the legal requirements for seizure are met. Depending on the circumstances and legal authority being relied upon, this may include the deer or meat and property allegedly connected with the investigation.

Seizure means property has been taken into official custody.  It does not automatically mean ownership has been permanently lost. Forfeiture means ownership is permanently lost to the Crown under a court order or another forfeiture provision authorized by law.

Keep every seizure notice, inventory, receipt, occurrence number, storage notice, and other document provided by the Conservation Officer.  Whether property must be returned or may be forfeited depends on the property, the legal authority used, the charges, and the outcome of the case.

What Happens Next?

What happens next depends on whether you received a ticket or summons, how you respond, and whether other charges were laid. A ticket should state the response options and deadline.  A summons must be answered as directed.

If the charge is disputed, disclosure can be requested and reviewed.  The case may be resolved by withdrawal, a guilty plea, a negotiated resolution, or a trial.

At trial, the prosecutor must prove the required elements of the abandonment or spoilage offence beyond a reasonable doubt.  Where several hunters, residents, or occupants were involved, each person’s alleged conduct, possession, knowledge, and control must be considered separately.

How Can DefendCharges.ca Help?

DefendCharges.ca can review the exact charge, the evidence about recovery and meat condition, and the prosecution’s theory about who killed, possessed, abandoned, or controlled the deer.

DefendCharges.ca can request and review disclosure, identify factual and legal issues, communicate with the prosecutor, explain possible outcomes, and represent you during the court process where permitted.

The same incident may also involve Illegal Deer Possession, Illegal Transportation of Deer, or a separate tag or licence allegation.  Each charge should be reviewed separately.

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 decide on the best course of action.  Contact us today to discuss your situation.

Key Takeaways

• Ontario law separately addresses abandoning killed game wildlife and permitting possessed game wildlife flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.
• Wanton waste is a common expression, not the wording used in section 36.
• An unsuccessful attempt to recover a wounded deer does not automatically prove abandonment.
• A non-hunter may face a spoilage allegation if the evidence establishes possession and responsibility for the meat.
• The condition of the flesh, recovery efforts, preservation measures, and individual control may be central to the case.
• The prosecutor must prove every required element of the particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

An abandoning-deer-meat case is not decided merely by showing that a carcass was found or that meat spoiled.  The charge must be tied to the correct legal subsection, the required condition of the flesh, and the individual responsibility of the person accused.

Start with the exact wording and section number on your ticket or summons, preserve the available records, and do not miss the response deadline or court date.  If several people handled the deer, related charges were laid, or property was seized, consider obtaining legal advice before deciding how to respond.