Ontario's Ag-Gag Laws are Back in Place: What These Changes Mean

On June 3, 2026, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling that struck down many parts of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act (STPFSA). In Animal Justice v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 380, the Court decided that the Act and its regulation are constitutional, restoring the restrictions on undercover investigations at farms and slaughterhouses.

A Brief History

The Ontario government passed the STPFSA in 2020. It made it an offence to gain access to a farm, slaughterhouse, or other listed premises under "false pretences," which is exactly what undercover investigators and journalists rely on to document their findings. It also placed restrictions on interfering with vehicles that transport farmed animals, and interactions with farmed animals without the farm owner's consent.

The law also allows owners to arrest people without a warrant, and places the onus on the accused to prove they had consent, rather than requiring the government to prove they did not.

In 2021, Animal Justice, freelance journalist Jessica Scott-Reid, and animal advocate Louise Jorgensen filed a Charter challenge, and argued that the law violated section 2(b) of the Charter, freedom of expression.

In April 2024, they won. Justice Markus Koehnen of the Ontario Superior Court found that key false pretence provisions breached section 2(b) of the Charter, and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Justice Koehnen emphasized that a whistleblower would have to make a legal judgment on whether what they were seeing was illegal.

However, Ontario appealed, and in September 2024 while the appeal was pending, the government amended the regulation under the Act, and changed many definitions.

In June 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the government's appeal and reversed the 2024 decision. The Court found that the application judge had misread the evidence about the law's purpose and had interpreted the whistleblower exception too narrowly. Importantly, though, the Court confirmed that the exceptions for journalists and employee whistleblowers survive: if you witness harm to a farm animal and report it to police or another authority "as soon as reasonably practicable," you're protected. That exception is narrow, though — harm that falls within "generally accepted agricultural practices" may not count as reportable harm at all. For, for the time being ag-gag laws are once again in effect in Ontario.

Our Work on This

When the Ontario law first came into effect, we ran a webinar called "Legal Activism: Navigating Ontario's Ag-Gag Laws," which set out what the law prohibits, what property owners and the police can do, and how to advocate effectively and lawfully.

Since then, aspects of the law have changed, including:

• Consent obtained through false pretences. If you get consent to enter a property by deceiving the owner — for example, by understating your qualifications or denying an affiliation with an animal-rights group — that consent is invalid. You're treated as a trespasser, even if you followed every rule once inside.

• What counts as a "farm animal." The regulation was amended in September 2024. Animals used exclusively in petting zoos or circuses are no longer included in the definition of "farm animal," so the Act's restrictions no longer apply to them. Animals used in rodeos and other arena events are still covered.

• Bearing witness. Vigils and bearing witness outside slaughterhouses and along transport routes remain lawful. But you cannot touch or otherwise interfere with the property — and that includes both the animals and the trucks transporting them.

  
  

As such, we've updated our informational hand out to provide a quick overview of the STPFSA, what its penalties entail, where it applies, possible advocating tactics, what to do if trouble arises, and general tips.

View the Handout

What This All Means

The Court of Appeal decision is disappointing. Its restrictions punish individuals who want to inform the public of what is happening to animals behind closed doors, which is crucial for the public to see.

However, this is not the end of the story. Earlier this week, Animal Justice, Jessica Scott-Reid and Louise Jorgensen filed their application to bring the case before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Now, we must wait for the SCC’s decision as to whether they will hear the case.

If you have any questions about how these laws apply to you, please do not hesitate to contact us via our free Animal and Environmental Law Inquiry Service.