This Act creates a territorial trespass offence, a detailed notice-and-signage framework, and parallel civil remedies. It defines “occupier” broadly, makes entry or regulated activities without authority a summary offence, and allows courts to impose fines, jail up to six months, and up-to-three-year exclusion orders.
The law also establishes default no‑entry rules for cultivated or visibly enclosed land, a presumption of implied access to building entrances, a new offence for giving unlawful notices, and procedural tools for arrest and enforcement. The Minister may regulate marking systems, locations excluded from the Act and classes of territorial peace officers, leaving important implementation choices to regulation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act criminalizes entering or remaining on premises without lawful authority and prohibits specified activities on premises when notice says so. It pairs summary penalties (fine, jail, or exclusion order) with a mechanism allowing courts to award pecuniary damages and prosecution costs in favour of victims.
Who It Affects
Private landowners, operators of agricultural and residential premises, education bodies (treated as occupiers for school property), designated peace officers, and anyone who posts or removes no‑trespass notices. It also interacts with Indigenous land, resource and self‑government agreements that take precedence where inconsistent.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts parts of access control from civil to criminal enforcement, gives occupiers new tools to exclude people, and creates an enforcement architecture that depends on territorial regulation and on-the-ground signposting — practical details that will determine how often criminal sanctions, arrests, or civil damages follow disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act defines key terms and makes clear that an occupier is not only a person in physical possession but also someone with lawful control over premises or the people allowed to enter. Education bodies are automatically occupiers of their school sites.
The Minister may, by regulation, designate additional classes of peace officers who can act under the law; that regulatory power will determine which front‑line officers enforce trespass rules. The Act also requires interpretation consistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and gives priority to any conflicting land, resources or self‑government agreements.
Entry is an offence when undertaken without a right or authority, including contract, and without the occupier’s express permission — a fact the defendant must prove. The criminal penalties are summary in nature and include a financial fine, imprisonment up to six months, and court orders banning attendance at the premises for up to three years; breaching such an exclusion is itself a separate offence.
The statute treats remaining after being ordered to leave as an independent basis for prosecution, and it elevates prolonged non‑compliance after a posted or given notice (24 hours or a longer period the occupier sets) as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Notices can be oral, written, posted signs visible from ordinary approaches, or marks under a prescribed system.
The Act creates a default prohibition without notice for gardens, fields, lawns, orchards, young tree plantings and woodlots used mainly for agriculture, and for land that is visibly enclosed to indicate the occupier’s intent to keep people out or animals in. Conversely, there is a statutory presumption that access to a building’s door by an apparently provided approach for lawful purposes is permitted.
The legislation also makes it an offence (fine up to $2,000) for someone other than an occupier or their authorised agent to place a notice banning entry. Peace officers may arrest without a warrant anyone they reasonably believe is committing trespass on the premises; they may also arrest without warrant off the premises if they reasonably believe a person recently departed after committing trespass and the person refuses to provide name and address or the officer believes the information is false.
On conviction, a prosecutor may request that the court assess pecuniary damages suffered by another person during the offence and enter judgment in that person’s favour; courts can also award reasonable prosecution costs to private prosecutors. Those monetary judgments are enforceable if filed in Territorial Court.
Regulations permit the Minister to exclude locations from the Act and to govern marking systems and peace officer classes — meaning many front‑line details will arrive after passage.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The defendant bears the evidential burden to prove they had the occupier’s express permission to enter or carry out an activity.
Default no‑entry applies without notice to cultivated land and to land that is visibly enclosed to keep people out or animals in.
Summary penalties include fines up to $10,000, imprisonment up to six months, and court orders barring attendance at premises for up to three years; breaching an exclusion order is a separate offence.
Posting a no‑entry notice when you are not the occupier (or authorized by the occupier) is an offence punishable by up to $2,000.
A peace officer may arrest off‑premises a person who recently left after trespass if that person refuses to give name/address or gives information the officer reasonably believes false.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and who counts as an occupier
This section casts a wide net for what counts as premises and who counts as an occupier, including persons with legal control over activities or entrants rather than only those in physical possession. It imports the Land Titles Act definition of land and explicitly makes owners occupiers for land, while treating education bodies as occupiers of school property; operationally, that means schools, landowners and some institutional operators can all rely on this Act to control access. The Minister’s rule‑making power to designate additional classes of peace officers is tucked here, so enforcement capacity will hinge on later regulations.
Indigenous rights and supremacy of land agreements
The Act demands interpretation consistent with s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and directly requires compliance with applicable land, resource or self‑government agreements, which prevail where inconsistent. Practically, that limits territorial application on lands covered by agreements and forces administrators and occupiers to check relevant agreements and board/council roles before acting under the Act.
Core trespass offence, penalties and aggravators
This provision creates the primary criminal offence for entering or remaining without lawful authority and makes proof that the occupier gave express permission rest on the defendant. It sets a trio of summary sanctions — monetary penalty up to $10,000, jail up to six months, and exclusion orders up to three years — and specifies that staying beyond an occupier’s notice period (default 24 hours unless a different period is set) is an aggravating factor. The section also creates a standalone offence for breaching an exclusion order, allowing repeated enforcement action.
How prohibitions, limited permissions, and the implied access rule operate
These provisions explain that occupiers can bar entry by giving notice and that, conversely, they can permit only specific activities on their premises, which then excludes all others. The statute supplies a practical implied‑access presumption for approaches to building doors, protecting common lawful interactions (deliveries, visitors). It also defines categories of land where entry is automatically prohibited without posted notice, which pushes the burden to anyone who believes they have a right to access such areas to seek prior permission.
Notice mechanics, signage form and unlawful notices
The Act accepts oral or written notice but emphasises visible signs or marks from ordinary points of access; the Minister can prescribe marking systems. A sign with an activity name or graphic suffices to permit or prohibit that activity, and an oblique line denotes prohibition. Crucially, only occupiers or their authorized agents may give no‑entry notices; unauthorized notices attract a specific summary offence with a separate fine ceiling, creating liability for third parties who improperly claim exclusion authority.
Arrest powers on and off premises
These sections authorize peace officers to arrest without a warrant anyone they reasonably believe is committing trespass on the premises; they extend off‑premises arrest power to persons who recently left after committing trespass when the person refuses to provide name and address or gives information reasonably believed false. That creates an evidence threshold centred on the officer’s reasonable belief and links investigative cooperation (providing accurate identity) to avoiding arrest.
Criminal conviction combined with civil damages and costs
Upon conviction, the prosecutor can ask the court, with the victim’s consent, to quantify pecuniary losses and enter judgment against the convicted person; courts may also order reasonable prosecution costs payable to private prosecutors. These remedies are cumulative with fines and do not extinguish separate civil actions, and the Act treats such monetary awards as enforceable Territorial Court judgments when filed, giving victims a streamlined route to recovery tied to the criminal process.
Regulations and coming into force
The Minister gets broad regulatory authority to exclude locations from the Act’s application, to prescribe marking systems and to designate classes of peace officers. The Act comes into force on a day set by Commissioner’s order, meaning the territorial executive will set the operational start date and fill in implementation details by regulation prior to enforcement.
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
- Private landowners and farmers — they gain a clearer statutory basis to bar entry to cultivated plots, lawns, orchards and enclosed land and can pursue criminal sanctions and civil recovery when people ignore notices.
- Education bodies — treated as occupiers of school premises, allowing schools to use the Act’s notice, exclusion and prosecution tools to manage access and student safety on school grounds.
- Indigenous governments and boards — the Act explicitly defers to land, resources and self‑government agreements, preserving avenues for Indigenous authorities to control access under their agreements rather than the territorial scheme.
Who Bears the Cost
- Alleged trespassers — face new criminal exposure, potential fines up to $10,000, jail time, exclusion orders and civil liability for pecuniary harms tied to a conviction.
- Occupiers who enforce notices — must implement correct signage, follow authorised procedures and risk liability if they authorise others to post notices improperly; they also may bear costs of private prosecutions and civil actions to enforce judgments.
- Territorial justice and policing resources — expanded arrest powers, prosecutions, and the potential for civil‑criminal hybrid remedies will create administrative and operational work for peace officers, prosecutors and courts, particularly while regulations and marking systems are developed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening occupiers’ ability to control and criminally sanction unwanted presence on their land and protecting individual liberty and due‑process safeguards: the statute gives occupiers and officers powerful exclusion and arrest tools while shifting burdens of proof and leaving many enforcement details to later regulation, creating trade‑offs between swift property protection and the risk of over‑criminalization or uneven enforcement.
The Act bundles criminal, regulatory and civil remedies around property control but leaves a number of operational choices to regulation and practice. The Minister’s power to designate which locations are excluded and which classes of officials count as peace officers means enforcement reach could vary materially depending on how the executive fills those gaps.
That creates a period after proclamation where the law’s practical contours — who enforces it, where, and how signs must look — are unsettled.
Two related tensions will drive litigation and policy debate. First, the evidentiary rule shifting proof of express permission to the defendant is an unusual procedural burden that may be challenged or tested in court; its real‑world effect is to make many access disputes easier for prosecutors to bring but harder for defendants to rebut without contemporaneous documentation or witnesses.
Second, the Act’s interaction with Indigenous land, resource and self‑government agreements and with public spaces requires granular application rules: the statutory primacy of agreements resolves legal conflict on paper but imposes practical duties on occupiers and officers to identify and defer to overlapping authorities in the field, which is a nontrivial implementation challenge for policing and for occupier compliance.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.