Trespass to Property Act

Summary#

This bill sets out clear rules for when a person is trespassing on private or other premises in the Northwest Territories. It defines who can control access to a place (the occupier), how people must be told to stay out or stop certain activities, and what penalties apply. The goal appears to be to protect property and safety with clear notices, fair enforcement, and respect for Indigenous and treaty rights.

Key changes and features:

• Makes it an offence to enter where entry is prohibited, do an activity that is prohibited, or stay after being told to leave by the occupier or their authorized person.
• Sets penalties up to a $10,000 fine, up to six months in jail, and a court order banning return to the premises for up to three years; separate penalties for breaching a ban order.
• Lets police arrest without a warrant on the premises, and in some cases shortly after a person leaves.
• Allows notice by spoken or written direction, posted signs, or prescribed markings; includes a new offence for giving “no entry” notice if you are not the occupier or authorized.
• Treats some lands as “no entry” even without signs (for example, cultivated or enclosed land).
• Lets courts order the convicted person to pay damages to those harmed and, if a private prosecution was used, reasonable prosecution costs.
• Requires interpretation consistent with section 35 Indigenous and treaty rights, land/resource/self‑government agreements, and gives those agreements priority if there is a conflict.
• Education bodies have the same rights and duties as occupiers for school property.
• Starts on a date set by the Commissioner (not immediate).

What it means for you#

• General public

  • You must leave any premises when told to by the occupier or someone they authorize.
  • You can be charged for entering or doing a banned activity where notice has been given, or for staying after being told to leave.
  • Even without signs, you must not enter cultivated land (like lawns, orchards, planted young trees, or woodlots on mainly farm land) or enclosed land meant to keep people out or animals in.
  • You are generally allowed to approach a building’s door by the usual path for a lawful purpose (for example, to knock), unless told otherwise.
  • If convicted, you could face a fine, jail, and a court order banning you from the premises for up to three years. Breaking a ban order is a separate offence.

• Property owners, tenants, businesses, and other occupiers

  • You can control entry and activities on your premises. You can give notice orally, in writing, with clear signs, or with markings set by regulation.
  • You can allow certain activities and, by doing so, block other activities by default; or you can ban specific activities without banning others.
  • You or your authorized person can direct someone to leave. Police may arrest without a warrant if they reasonably believe someone is trespassing.
  • If someone is convicted of trespass that caused you money loss (pecuniary damage), the court can order them to pay you damages in addition to any fine.
  • If you bring a private prosecution that leads to conviction, the court may order the defendant to pay your reasonable prosecution costs.
  • Only you or someone you authorize can issue “no entry” notices; others who do so commit an offence.

• Schools and education bodies

  • School authorities have the same powers and duties as occupiers for school premises. They can set entry rules, post signs, and ask police to enforce them.

• Farmers and rural landholders

  • Your cultivated or enclosed land is treated as “no entry” even without signs. Posting signs may still help make boundaries clear.

• Peace officers

  • You may arrest without a warrant on the premises when you reasonably believe a person is trespassing.
  • Shortly after a suspected trespasser leaves, you may arrest without a warrant if they refuse to provide their name and address or you reasonably believe the information they gave is false.

• Indigenous governments and rights-holders

  • Actions under this Act must align with Indigenous and treaty rights and with any land, resources, and self‑government agreements. Those agreements prevail if there is a conflict.
  • Boards and councils established by such agreements may have required roles in how actions under the Act proceed.

• Everyone

  • Signs can show permitted or prohibited activities using words or simple graphics (a symbol with a diagonal line means “prohibited”).
  • The Minister can make rules about marking systems and can name places where the Act does not apply.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible cost and compliance impacts:

• Police and court time for enforcement, arrests, prosecutions, and damages orders.
• Costs for occupiers to post and maintain signs or markings.
• Potential fine revenue if offences are prosecuted.
• Administrative work to develop and implement any prescribed marking systems or exemptions by regulation.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to give clear, simple trespass rules so people know where they can go and what they can do.
• It could improve safety and property protection by allowing occupiers to set rules and by backing those rules with enforceable penalties.
• Allowing notice by speech, signs, or markings could reduce confusion and make compliance easier.
• Arrest powers without a warrant in defined situations could help police respond quickly to ongoing or recent trespass.
• Letting courts award damages and private prosecution costs may help victims recover losses and deter repeat problems.
• The Act explicitly recognizes Indigenous and treaty rights and gives priority to land and self‑government agreements, which could improve legal certainty on settlement or agreement lands.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that penalties of up to $10,000 and six months in jail may be seen as severe for some trespass situations.
• The “default no entry” for cultivated or enclosed land could limit traditional or recreational passage across rural areas unless people confirm permission, which may be hard in practice.
• The line between implied permission to approach a door for a “lawful purpose” and trespass may be unclear in some cases, which could lead to disputes.
• Warrantless arrest powers off the premises when identity information is refused or believed false may raise questions about safeguards and the risk of mistaken arrests.
• The Act allows a damages judgment in criminal court and also preserves separate civil lawsuits based on the same facts. This could create confusion about parallel proceedings and recovery, even if double recovery is ultimately avoided.
• Important details, such as specific marking systems and any places where the Act will not apply, depend on future regulations, so the full impact is not yet clear.