Manitoba drone laws: regulatory silence, and the strongest privacy tort in Canada
Manitoba is the quietest drone jurisdiction in Canada on paper and one of the riskiest in practice. There is no published provincial-park drone policy, no Winnipeg parks drone bylaw, and no drone statute. But Manitoba has the clearest privacy tort in the country — The Privacy Act makes surveillance actionable “whether or not accomplished by trespass”, which is precisely the situation a drone creates. The regulatory silence is real; the civil exposure is real too.
Provincial parks: a genuine gap, not a research failure
I could not find a published Manitoba drone-in-parks policy, and I looked hard. The Manitoba Parks landing page makes no mention of drones or UAVs anywhere, and directs visitors to contact individual park offices for regulations. This is worth stating plainly rather than papering over: Manitoba has neither a parks drone ban nor a parks drone permit stream that I can verify.
What the legislation provides:
- The Provincial Parks Act, C.C.S.M. c.P20, s.31(1) — contravening the Act or regulations is an offence carrying a fine of not more than $10,000 or six months, or both. That is the lowest parks-offence maximum of the four western provinces; Saskatchewan’s is $50,000.
- s.27(1) — the director may open or close all or part of a provincial park, and restrict travel on or close any road or trail, by posting signs. This is the enforceable mechanism in Manitoba: a posted closure, not a standing rule.
- The Park Activities Regulation, M.R. 141/96, contains no aircraft provisions at all. Its s.8(2) permit list covers construction, tree cutting and well drilling — nothing aeronautical. Section 5(1) lets the director control and prohibit traffic, but it is framed around vehicle and pedestrian traffic, so its application to aircraft is arguable at best.
Practical advice: call the specific park office before you fly, and read the signs when you arrive. Do not assume permission from silence, and do not assume prohibition either.
The Privacy Act: Manitoba’s real exposure
This is the section that matters most and the one nobody writes about. The Privacy Act, C.C.S.M. c.P125:
- s.2(1) — “A person who substantially, unreasonably, and without claim of right, violates the privacy of another person, commits a tort against that other person.”
- s.3(a) — privacy is violated by, among other things, “surveillance, auditory or visual, whether or not accomplished by trespass, of that person, their home or other place of residence, or of any vehicle, by any means including eavesdropping, watching, spying, besetting or following.”
Read the phrase “whether or not accomplished by trespass” again. It means a Manitoba homeowner suing over drone surveillance does not have to establish that your aircraft entered their airspace or that you set foot on their land. That is the single most directly applicable non-federal drone-imaging provision I have verified anywhere in Canada, and it is a private right of action — no regulator, no complaint process, just a statement of claim.
It is also, notably, a tort rather than a fine. A Manitoba parks offence tops out at $10,000. A privacy claim has no such ceiling.
What this means for a working operator. In Manitoba, the risk-management priority is not the parks rules — it is your imaging practice. Brief clients on what you will and will not capture. Fly transits at altitude rather than at fence-line height. If a neighbouring property is unavoidably in frame, say so in writing before the shoot. None of that is legally required; all of it is what a defence looks like.
Privacy law on the regulatory side
Manitoba is not on the federal Privacy Commissioner’s substantially-similar list, so PIPEDA applies directly to commercial drone imaging here, as it does in Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces. FIPPA — The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — covers Manitoba public bodies only, and the Manitoba Ombudsman confirms it does not apply to private businesses or individuals. Manitoba did pass a private-sector act, PIPITPA, but it is widely reported never to have been proclaimed into force; I could not confirm its current status against a primary source, so treat PIPEDA as the operative regime.
Trespass
The governing statute is The Trespass Act, C.C.S.M. c.T156, in force 15 October 2021 — it replaced the older Petty Trespasses Act, and many secondary sources still cite the repealed one. Section 1(1) makes it an offence to enter, without permission of the owner, tenant or occupier, on: wholly enclosed land; partially enclosed land or land marked with signage indicating restricted access; construction sites; residential lawns and gardens; farmyards or land where agricultural equipment is stored; and land used for cultivation, grazing, raising animals, birds, fish, or beekeeping. It also covers entering other land after being told not to, and remaining after being asked to leave.
On penalties I have to be straight with you: the consolidated text I read contains no penalty section. Sections 3 to 5 deal with exemptions, title to land and communications. The fine amounts are set elsewhere, probably through The Provincial Offences Act. I am not going to quote a Manitoba trespass fine I cannot source. The practical rule is unchanged — get permission for your launch point, in writing where money is involved.
Winnipeg has no parks drone bylaw
I read the full text of Parks By-law No. 85/2009 and its repealed predecessor, By-law No. 3219/82. Neither contains any provision addressing aircraft, model aircraft, drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, or flying or launching objects. No prohibition, no permit requirement, no penalty. The by-law regulates weapons, vehicles, animals, camping and general conduct.
That makes Winnipeg the largest city in western Canada with no municipal drone rule — a striking contrast with Calgary’s detailed permit regime and Saskatoon’s city-wide prohibition. Council discussed drone regulation in 2016 but no bylaw resulted. Manitoba’s drone bylaw activity is in smaller municipalities: Morden reportedly limits powered aircraft city-wide except for approved commercial uses, though I could not verify the bylaw number or section.
Silence is not permission — a general nuisance or conduct provision can still be applied at an officer’s discretion — but it does mean Winnipeg park flying is not the clear-cut offence it would be in Saskatoon or Edmonton.
Wildfire
Manitoba has a documented, repeated problem here. Unauthorized drones have grounded water bombers — including one fighting a fire in Whiteshell Provincial Park, and further groundings around Flin Flon during the Manitoba–Saskatchewan wildfire fight, prompting a Premier-level safety appeal.
Enforcement is federal. CARs s.601.15 prohibits operating an aircraft over a forest fire area, or within five nautical miles of one, below 3,000 feet AGL — and it applies automatically the moment a fire exists, with no NOTAM required. CARs s.601.16 lets the Minister issue a NOTAM defining or expanding the restricted volume. Transport Canada’s administrative monetary penalties run to $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation. Unlike British Columbia, I found no Manitoba wildfire-interference offence with provincial penalties.
Manitoba’s practical mechanism during a severe season is closure: fire and travel restrictions issued through the Parks and Protected Spaces branch, up to and including closing hiking trails in all provincial parks. That is how park access — and therefore drone access — actually disappears here, since there is no standing drone policy to suspend.
If you are working toward certification
None of this changes the exam or the flight review. The Advanced written exam is 50 questions in 60 minutes at an 80% pass mark, written online through Transport Canada’s Drone Management Portal from anywhere in Canada, and the certificate is valid nationally. What the material on this page changes is the operational judgement you are assessed on — a reviewer expects you to distinguish airspace authorization from land-use permission and say which one you hold for the site you are standing on.
Free preparation: the practice exam and the Advanced certificate walkthrough. Paid: the Canadian RPAS Operations Guide.
Related reading
- All 13 provinces and territories compared — parks, permits, trespass and privacy side by side
- Saskatchewan drone laws — the one province whose parks allow drones
- Alberta drone laws — Calgary and Edmonton bylaws, and trespass without signage
- Where can I fly a drone in Canada? — airspace authority versus land-use authority
- Canadian drone rules at a glance — every federal limit on one page
Questions
Can I fly a drone in a Manitoba provincial park?
There is no published Manitoba provincial-park drone policy either permitting or prohibiting it — the Manitoba Parks site does not mention drones at all and directs visitors to contact individual park offices. The enforceable mechanism is a posted closure by the director under s.27(1) of The Provincial Parks Act. Call the specific park office before flying and read the signage on arrival.
Can someone sue me for flying a drone over their property in Manitoba?
Yes, and Manitoba makes it unusually straightforward. Section 3(a) of The Privacy Act, C.C.S.M. c.P125, makes visual surveillance a violation of privacy “whether or not accomplished by trespass” — so the claimant does not have to prove your aircraft entered their airspace or that you set foot on their land. Section 2(1) creates the tort. It is a private right of action with no regulatory ceiling.
Does Winnipeg have a drone bylaw?
No. Parks By-law No. 85/2009 contains no provision addressing aircraft, model aircraft, drones or UAVs, and neither did its repealed predecessor. Winnipeg is the largest city in western Canada without a municipal drone rule. Council discussed regulation in 2016 but no bylaw resulted. Silence is not permission — general conduct provisions can still be applied — but it is not the clear offence it would be in Saskatoon or Edmonton.
Which privacy law applies to drone footage in Manitoba?
PIPEDA applies directly to commercial activity — Manitoba is not on the federal Privacy Commissioner's substantially-similar list, unlike Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. FIPPA covers Manitoba public bodies only. Manitoba passed a private-sector act, PIPITPA, but it is widely reported never to have been proclaimed into force.
Written by Chris Jones, Transport Canada-certified RPAS pilot and flight reviewer. Last reviewed 8 August 2026. Spot an error? Tell me and I'll fix it.