Interfering With Lawful Hunting in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: September 13 2026

---

Question: I was ticketed in Ontario for interfering with lawful hunting, what should I do next to respond to the summons?

Answer: If you received an Ontario Court of Justice summons or set-fine ticket for interfering with lawful hunting, don’t panic or miss the response deadline, and don’t pay before reviewing the exact offence wording on your document under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, the subsection branch (tampering versus purposeful positioning or purposeful wildlife disturbance), and whether the underlying hunting was lawful; start by recording the timeline, locations, and what hunting gear or wildlife was involved, preserve photos, video, messages, and any hunting documents, and get paralegal help to assess evidence gaps like purpose, hindrance or prevention, and whether the conduct actually disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife, because DefendCharges.ca™ can help you understand options and next steps by phone at (647) 559-3377  

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Interfering with Lawful Hunting in Ontario

Received a ticket or summons for Interfering with Lawful Hunting in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario wildlife law.  The charge concerns conduct said to have interfered with another person's lawful hunting by tampering with hunting equipment, deliberately positioning yourself to hinder or prevent the hunt, or deliberately engaging in activity that disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife.

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.  Ontario's interference provision contains three different ways the offence can arise, and the wording about a purpose of interfering applies expressly to the positioning and wildlife disturbance branches but not in the same way to the tampering branch.

This page explains what an Interfering with Lawful Hunting charge means, the three forms of prohibited interference, what lawful hunting means in this context, what must be proven, the current fine and possible consequences, the evidence and legal issues that may matter, and what may happen next.

I Received an Interfering with Lawful Hunting 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 set fine schedule uses the short form wording Interfere with lawful hunting for an offence under subsection 13(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Record what happened while the details are still fresh.  Note where everyone was located, what the hunters were doing, what you were doing, what hunting equipment or wildlife was involved, what was said, who witnessed the incident, and whether photographs or video may exist.

Keep any photographs, video, messages, maps, location records, property information, hunting documents, or other records already available to you that may help explain the incident.  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 the exact offence, which branch of subsection 13(1) the facts appear to involve, whether the hunting was lawful, and whether the available evidence supports the required conduct and purpose.

The set fine printed on a ticket is not the same as the maximum penalty a court may impose after conviction.  Other consequences may also need to be considered before deciding how to respond.

What Is an Interfering with Lawful Hunting Charge?

Interfering with Lawful Hunting is an offence under subsection 13(1) of Ontario's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.  It prohibits interfering with lawful hunting through one of three forms of conduct.

• Tampering with traps, nets, bait, firearms, or another thing used for hunting;
• Placing yourself in a position, for the purpose of interfering, that hinders or prevents hunting; or
• Engaging in an activity, for the purpose of interfering, that disturbs or is likely to disturb wildlife.

The prosecution does not have to prove all three forms of interference.  The charge can be based on one of them, so the wording of subsection 13(1) must be matched to what the evidence says you actually did.

The provision protects lawful hunting.  It does not make every disagreement with a hunter, every presence near a hunt, or every activity that happens to affect wildlife an offence.

What Does Tampering Mean?

Tampering generally means interfering with or improperly meddling with something being used for the hunt.  Depending on the facts, the issue may involve moving, altering, damaging, disabling, removing, or otherwise interfering with bait, a firearm, a blind, a stand, a decoy, or another thing being used for hunting.

The important questions include what the item was, whether it was being used for hunting, what you did to it, and whether the conduct amounted to tampering within subsection 13(1).

Being near hunting equipment, touching an item for an unrelated reason, or being accused of moving something does not by itself answer those questions.  The surrounding circumstances and the evidence still have to establish the conduct required by the offence.

Does the Interference Have to Be Intentional?

The answer depends on which part of subsection 13(1) applies to the charge.  The positioning and wildlife disturbance branches expressly require conduct done for the purpose of interfering.

For the positioning branch, it is not enough simply to show that you happened to be standing, walking, parked, or otherwise located where hunting became more difficult.  The evidence must address whether you placed yourself there for the purpose of interfering and whether that position actually hindered or prevented hunting.

For the wildlife disturbance branch, the evidence must address whether you engaged in the activity for the purpose of interfering and whether the activity disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife.  Ordinary noise, travel, work, recreation, or other activity near a hunting area is not automatically enough merely because wildlife reacted or hunters were affected.

The tampering branch is worded differently and does not repeat the express phrase for the purpose of interfering.  That difference matters, but it does not mean accidental contact with equipment automatically proves the offence.  The evidence still has to establish tampering within the statutory prohibition, and the statutory defences may also be relevant.

What Does Lawful Hunting Mean for This Charge?

The hunting affected by the alleged interference must have been lawful.  That requirement is part of subsection 13(1) and can be important where there is a genuine dispute about whether the hunting activity complied with the law.

What must be checked depends on the hunt.  Relevant issues may include the species, season, location, licence or tag authority, permission to hunt on the land, hunting method, equipment, and any other rule that actually affected whether the hunting was lawful at the time.

The page does not need to turn every interference case into a full audit of the hunter's paperwork or hunting conduct.  Only the requirements that could realistically affect the lawfulness of the particular hunt need to be reviewed.

What Law Applies?

Subsection 13(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 is the principal provision for this charge.  It prohibits interference with lawful hunting, trapping, or fishing through tampering, purposeful positioning that hinders or prevents the activity, or purposeful activity that disturbs or is likely to disturb wildlife or fish.

The charge arises directly under the Act.  Other hunting rules and regulations matter only to the extent that they affect whether the underlying hunting was lawful in the circumstances.

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 prosecutor must first establish that you were the person who committed the conduct alleged, that another person was engaged in hunting, and that the hunting was lawful.  The remaining requirements depend on which form of interference the prosecution relies on.

Tampering with Something Used for Hunting

For a tampering case, the prosecution must establish that you tampered with a trap, net, bait, firearm, or another thing used for hunting and that the conduct fell within subsection 13(1)'s prohibition on interfering with lawful hunting.

Placing Yourself Where Hunting Was Hindered or Prevented

For a positioning case, the prosecution must establish that you placed yourself in a position, that you did so for the purpose of interfering with the hunt, and that your position hindered or prevented the hunting.  Where any one of those points is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the required elements of that branch are not established.

Activity That Disturbed or Was Likely to Disturb Wildlife

For a wildlife disturbance case, the prosecution must establish that you engaged in an activity for the purpose of interfering with the hunt and that the activity disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife.  Evidence about what the activity was, where wildlife was located, how the animals reacted, and what the surrounding circumstances were may be important.

Can You Be Charged if No Animal Was Killed?

Yes.  An animal does not have to be killed, injured, or captured for an Interfering with Lawful Hunting charge to apply.

Ontario's legal meaning of hunting includes activities such as lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing, or shooting at wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured, or harassed.  It also includes capturing or harassing wildlife, subject to the limits in the statutory definition.

An interference charge can therefore arise while a hunt is underway before any animal has been harvested.  The prosecution must still prove that lawful hunting was taking place and that your conduct met the requirements of one of the three prohibited forms of interference.

What Are Common Situations That Lead to This Charge?

These charges commonly arise from disputes about equipment, access, positioning, noise, or other conduct occurring while someone else is hunting.  The legal issue is not simply whether the hunters were annoyed or whether their hunt was disrupted; the evidence must fit subsection 13(1).

Hunting Equipment Was Allegedly Moved or Altered

A dispute may involve bait, a blind, a stand, a decoy, a firearm, or another thing being used for hunting.  The case may turn on who handled the item, what was done to it, why it was handled, and whether the conduct actually amounted to tampering with something used for the hunt.

A Person Allegedly Blocked or Positioned Themselves Near Hunters

A person may be accused of deliberately standing, walking, parking, or remaining in a location to hinder or prevent the hunt.  Location evidence, timing, statements, video, and the person's reason for being there may be important to whether the required purpose and actual hindrance or prevention are proven.

Noise or Other Activity Allegedly Disturbed Wildlife

The charge may involve yelling, horns, vehicles, machinery, music, or another activity said to have disturbed wildlife or caused animals to leave an area.  The prosecution must still address the purpose of the activity and whether it disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife.

A Land Use Dispute Occurred During a Hunt

Hunters, landowners, neighbours, hikers, workers, or other people may have competing reasons for being in the same area.  Lawful use of property or a public area does not automatically become hunting interference simply because it affects a hunt.  The particular conduct, purpose where required, and effect on the hunting activity have to be examined.

What Is the Fine?

The current Ontario set fine for Interfere with lawful hunting under subsection 13(1) is $150.  A set fine is the preset fine used when a particular provincial offence is dealt with by ticket.

The set fine is not necessarily the total amount payable.  A victim fine surcharge and applicable court costs may also be added after conviction.

The set fine is also different from the statutory maximum available if the matter proceeds through court.  Under the general penalty provision of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, a person convicted of this 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 of the offence and how the case is resolved.

Can This Charge Affect a Licence or Authorization?

A licence or authorization consequence is not automatic merely because you have been charged with Interfering with Lawful Hunting.  A charge under subsection 13(1) does not itself mean that you were hunting or that you held a hunting licence.

After conviction for an offence under the Act other than the separate careless firearm offence in subsection 16(1), a court may make an order restricting a person from possessing, applying for, or obtaining a type of licence or authorization related to the offence and from engaging in an activity requiring it.  Whether that power is relevant to an interference case depends on the facts and the relationship between the offence and any licence or authorization involved.

What Evidence May Be Used?

The most useful evidence usually addresses what everyone was doing, whether lawful hunting was taking place, which form of interference is alleged, and what your purpose was where the statute requires one.  Evidence should be reviewed for both what it shows and what may be missing from the prosecution's account.

Officer and Witness Evidence

Conservation Officer or police notes, observations, recordings, witness statements, and testimony from the hunters or other people present may be used to describe the incident.  Their accounts may address what was said, what conduct occurred, whether equipment was touched or moved, where people were positioned, and how the hunt was affected.

Photographs, Video and Electronic Records

Cell phone video, trail camera footage, security video, photographs, messages, social media posts, GPS information, and other electronic records may help establish timing, location, conduct, or purpose.  A short recording should be considered in context because it may not show what happened before or after the recorded portion.

Evidence That the Hunting Was Lawful

Where the lawfulness of the hunt is genuinely disputed, licences, tags, season information, property permission, location records, and other hunting documents may become relevant.  The necessary records depend on the species and the particular hunting activity rather than on a generic checklist.

Physical and Location Evidence

Hunting equipment, bait, stands, blinds, decoys, property boundaries, maps, roads, trails, distances, and the location of wildlife or people may help explain what happened.  Physical evidence may be especially important where the charge turns on alleged tampering or whether a person's position actually hindered or prevented the hunt.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The defence depends on the branch of subsection 13(1) relied on, the lawfulness of the underlying hunt, and the available evidence.  A possible defence should be assessed against the actual charge rather than assumed from the page title alone.

The Hunting Was Not Proven Lawful

Subsection 13(1) protects lawful hunting.  If there is a genuine issue about whether the hunt complied with a legal requirement that affected its lawfulness, that issue may need to be established through the relevant hunting records, location evidence, or other proof.

The Conduct Does Not Fit the Charged Form of Interference

The evidence may not establish tampering, purposeful positioning that hindered or prevented hunting, or purposeful activity that disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife.  The exact statutory branch matters because proof of conduct associated with one branch does not automatically prove another.

The Required Purpose of Interfering Is Not Proven

For the positioning and wildlife disturbance branches, the prosecution must prove the purpose of interfering beyond a reasonable doubt.  Evidence that you were travelling, working, using property, recreating, communicating with someone, or present for another reason may be relevant if it raises a reasonable doubt about that required purpose.

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 facts of the particular case.

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 misunderstanding about what an item was being used for, what activity was occurring, or another material circumstance may be relevant if the legal requirements of the defence are met.

Identification, Context or Reliability Problems

The evidence may not reliably establish that you were the person who committed the conduct, what was said, when an event occurred, or what happened outside a short video or witness account.  Inconsistencies, missing footage, conflicting witnesses, location evidence, or other context can affect whether the prosecution has proven the charge.

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, electronic records, and other investigative material.

After disclosure is available, the evidence can be compared with the exact requirements of subsection 13(1).  The review should focus on whether lawful hunting was taking place, which form of interference is actually alleged, whether the required conduct occurred, whether a purpose of interfering must be and can be proven, and whether a statutory defence or other legal issue applies.

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

• Interfering with Lawful Hunting is an offence under subsection 13(1) of Ontario's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997;
• The offence can involve tampering with something used for hunting, purposeful positioning that hinders or prevents hunting, or purposeful activity that disturbs or is likely to disturb wildlife;
• The hunting affected by the alleged interference must have been lawful;
• The positioning and wildlife disturbance branches expressly require a purpose of interfering, while the tampering branch is worded differently;
• The current set fine is $150, while the general statutory maximum is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both; and
• The exact statutory branch and the disclosure should be reviewed before deciding how to respond to the charge.

Conclusion

An Interfering with Lawful Hunting charge should be reviewed by matching the evidence to the particular form of interference relied on under subsection 13(1).  Important issues may include whether the underlying hunt was lawful, whether tampering actually occurred, whether a person's position hindered or prevented hunting, whether an activity disturbed or was likely to disturb wildlife, and whether the required purpose of interfering can be proven where that wording applies.

Before paying the ticket or entering a plea, review the exact charge, disclosure, 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.