Bill 40 makes targeted amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador Lands Act (SNL1991 c36). Most changes replace gendered pronouns and update a court reference to modernize drafting; one substantive addition gives the minister explicit authority to set fees related to reservations of Crown lands.
The measure is largely technical housekeeping, but the new fee‑setting power and a number of substitutions that convert pronouns into specified actors (for example replacing "he or she" with "the minister" or "the adverse claimant") change how some administrative and procedural responsibilities are expressed. That can affect who bears costs and how land‑administration processes operate in practice, so land administrators, applicants for Crown‑land reservations, surveyors, and legal counsel should review the specific substitutions rather than assume the bill is purely cosmetic.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces gendered pronouns across multiple provisions, updates a court name in the definitions, and inserts a new subsection (s.8(2.1)) that authorizes the minister to set fees for the purpose and administration of reservations of Crown lands.
Who It Affects
Provincial land administration (the minister and departmental staff), applicants for Crown‑land reservations, surveyors who enter and report on Crown lands, land registries, and anyone who currently uses reserved shoreline or Crown parcels for access or operations.
Why It Matters
Most edits are drafting modernizations, but the new fee power is a substantive administrative tool that can change access costs and program design. Substituting specific office‑holders or roles for gendered pronouns can also narrow or clarify who has legal duties and who carries risk in enforcement and application processes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 40 reads as a focused statutory clean‑up with one explicit administrative empowerment. The legislature goes through the Lands Act and replaces gendered language ("he or she", "his or her") with neutral wording or with explicit role references ("the minister", "the adverse claimant", "the person", "the judge's", "the surveyor").
That exercise modernizes the drafting and, in several places, replaces ambiguous pronouns with named actors, which both clarifies responsibility and can change how obligations are read in practice.
A separate, substantive insertion is added to section 8: a new subsection 8(2.1) gives the minister the authority to set fees "for the purpose and administration of the reservation" when Crown‑land reservations have been ordered. The text does not prescribe fee limits, consultation requirements, or a process for establishing those fees; it simply creates the head of authority for fee regulation or policy to follow in regulations or administrative practice.Other amendments are procedural: the bill updates the statutory reference that formerly pointed to the "Trial Division" and replaces it with "Supreme Court" in the definitions, aligning the Act with current court nomenclature.
It also tidies language in sections governing claims, notices, unauthorized use, court orders, registration, entry on land, and interference with surveyors—again turning gendered pronouns into neutral or role‑specific terms. Those edits will require changes to forms, templates, and internal procedures used by the department and by lawyers who practice in Crown‑land matters.Taken together, the bill is not a broad policy overhaul of Crown‑land law.
Its substantive effect centers on the newly explicit ability to charge fees for reservations and on the textual clarifications that could affect interpretation of who must act or who receives notice in a handful of contested or administrative processes. That combination of modest clarification and a new administrative power is why affected practitioners should read the precise substitutions rather than assume the Act's meaning is unchanged.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 8 gains a new subsection (8(2.1)) authorizing the minister to set fees "for the purpose and administration of the reservation" when a reservation of Crown lands has been ordered.
Paragraphs in the definitions (Para. 2(a) and 2(e)) replace the historic reference to the "Trial Division" with "Supreme Court," updating the Act's court nomenclature.
The bill systematically replaces gendered pronouns ("he or she", "his or her", "him or her") throughout the Act with neutral wording or role‑specific terms such as "the minister," "the adverse claimant," "the person," "the judge's," and "the surveyor.", Subsection 2.1(2) is changed so that the relevant actor is explicitly "the minister," which pins decision‑making authority to the minister rather than leaving it described by a pronoun.
Amendments to sections on entry, surveyors, registration and notice (notably ss.25, 27, 29.1, 30, 59, 61, 64, 65) convert procedural pronouns into explicit references, which can change how obligations and liabilities are attributed in practice.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Update court reference in definitions
The bill deletes references to the "Trial Division" and replaces them with "Supreme Court" in the definitions. Practically, this is an alignment with current institutional names; lawyers should check cross‑references in other statutes or regulations that cite the old phrase to avoid inconsistent citations.
Clarify actor for Labrador Inuit rights provision
Subsection 2.1(2) replaces "he or she" with "the minister." That substitution turns what was a gendered, pronoun‑based reference into an explicit assignment of responsibility to the minister. Where the provision interacts with Labrador Inuit rights or related processes, this makes the decision‑maker clear and may narrow the scope for arguing a delegated official or other actor has authority unless the Act elsewhere permits it.
Neutralize pronouns in shoreline reservation language
Subsection 7 sees multiple pronoun removals: "his or her" becomes "the" and "he or she" becomes "the minister." These edits remove gendered language and, in one instance, replace a vague pronoun with an explicit role. For operations that reserve shoreline, the change clarifies who the statutory referent is when obligations or permissions are described.
Ministerial power to set fees for Crown‑land reservations
The bill inserts subsection 8(2.1): when a reservation of Crown lands has been ordered under existing subsections, the minister may set fees "for the purpose and administration of the reservation." This is the single substantive policy addition in the bill. It creates an explicit head of authority for charging fees but does not include limits, procedural requirements, or a public consultation mandate; those operational elements would need to be developed in regulations, policy documents, or administrative practice.
Procedural clarifications around claims, notice, and unauthorized use
The bill replaces pronouns in provisions governing adverse claims, notice of application, unauthorized use of Crown lands, and court orders—substituting terms like "the adverse claimant," "the person," and "the judge's." Those substitutions make it explicit who must act, who must receive notice, and whose authority is implicated by court orders. That precision reduces ambiguity but can alter the practical allocation of procedural responsibility.
Registration, entry, and surveyor provisions modernized
Amendments in these sections remove gendered pronouns and replace them with specific actors (for example, "the minister," "the person or surveyor"). The bill also clarifies references to actions taken under particular subsections. For surveyors and anyone entering Crown lands, this reduces textual ambiguity about who is authorized to act and who benefits from the protections or immunities in the Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Provincial department responsible for Crown lands — gains clearer statutory language and an explicit fee authority, which simplifies administrative design and creates a legal basis for charging and collecting fees related to reservations.
- Legal drafters and counsel — benefit from modernized, gender‑neutral drafting and explicit role references that reduce ambiguity in who is responsible for statutory duties.
- Surveyors and licensed professionals — receive clearer textual recognition ("surveyor" or "person or surveyor") that can reduce disputes about the scope of their authority and the protections afforded when acting under the Act.
- Land registry and record‑keeping staff — clearer role‑specific language reduces interpretive friction when processing applications, notices, and registrations tied to Crown lands.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants for Crown‑land reservations (individuals, commercial operators, community groups) — now potentially subject to fees the minister may set; those fees could raise the cost of access or development tied to reserved Crown parcels.
- Small users and local access operators (fishers, recreational users) — if the department designs fees that apply broadly to reservation purposes, small‑scale access could become more costly or administratively burdensome.
- Departmental IT and administrative budgets — will need to update forms, templates, guidance, and internal procedures to reflect the new language and the new fee regime, incurring transition costs.
- Legal practitioners and registrars — must revise standard documents, filings, and advice to reflect changed statutory references and explicit role assignments, creating short‑term compliance work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades clarity and modernized drafting for the risk that specificity will alter legal responsibility and operational outcomes: making who must act explicit reduces ambiguity, but substituting pronouns with named actors can narrow discretion and shift costs; simultaneously, empowering the minister to set reservation fees offers administrative flexibility and revenue tools but creates a policy gap because the statute provides no limits or procedural safeguards.
On the surface, replacing gendered pronouns is a drafting upgrade; in practice, many of the substitutions change an unspecified pronoun into a specific office or role. That shift reduces ambiguity but can also narrow or reassign legal responsibilities.
For example, changing a pronoun to "the minister" can preclude an alternative interpretation that a delegated official or agency functionary holds the power, unless the Act elsewhere expressly permits delegation. Those kinds of subtle shifts may produce litigation or require regulatory clarification where practice had previously relied on a broader reading of responsibility.
The new fee power is the bill's most consequential element but is minimalist: it authorizes fees without defining scope, limits, exemption criteria, consultation, or appeal procedures. That creates a policy blank slate—administrators can design fees to recover administrative costs or to generate revenue, but stakeholders have no guidance in the statute about how fees will be determined.
That raises questions about fairness, access (especially for small users and Indigenous communities), and potential regulatory dependency on fees to finance Crown‑land programs. Finally, the textual changes will force an operational update across forms, cross‑references, and related statutes; if those downstream changes are not coordinated, the province could temporarily create inconsistent references or administrative confusion.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.