Newfoundland and Labrador drone laws: the only province with a park aircraft regulation
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada where the provincial-park take-off and landing restriction sits in a regulation rather than a policy. Section 16 of the Provincial Parks Regulations requires a minister’s permit to land or take off an aircraft in a provincial park, and the penalty range is the widest in the country — $100 to $10,000. NL also has a statutory privacy tort that is actionable without proof of damage. And the visitor-facing park rules never mention drones at all, which is a trap.
Provincial parks: an actual regulation
Provincial Parks Regulations, NLR 91/97, s.16 “Use of Aircraft”:
“(1) A person shall not land an aircraft in or take off in an aircraft from a provincial park unless he or she had first obtained a permit to do so from the minister. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the health or safety of a person requires that an aircraft land in or take off from a provincial park without a permit to do so first having been obtained from the minister.”
Two things make this significant. First, it is a regulation, not a management policy — so unlike Sépaq’s rule in Quebec or NB Parks’ FAQ, it is directly enforceable as an offence. Second, it is framed exactly as a take-off and landing rule, which is the constitutionally safe formulation: it regulates land use, not airspace, and is therefore squarely within provincial competence.
The interpretive step you should know about: the regulations do not define “aircraft.” Section 2 defines “off-road vehicle” but not aircraft. So whether a drone is caught turns on ordinary meaning informed by the federal Aeronautics Act and the CARs, under which an RPAS is an aircraft. That is the strong reading and I would rely on it — but it is a step, not an express mention, and s.16 was written in 1997 with float planes and helicopters in mind.
Penalty: Provincial Parks Act, RSNL 1990, c.P-32, s.9 — a person who fails to comply with the Act or regulations is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $100 or more than $10,000. That is the widest and highest parks range in Atlantic Canada by a large margin; Nova Scotia’s tops out at $1,000 and PEI’s minimum is $25.
The trap worth flagging. I read both the ParksNL Provincial Park Rules and Regulations 2024 PDF and the ParksNL activities page. Neither mentions drones, aircraft or model aircraft anywhere. A visitor relying on the published rules — which is exactly what a careful person does — would never learn that s.16 exists or that a minister’s permit is required. If you fly in Newfoundland and Labrador provincial parks, the regulation is the document that governs, not the visitor handout.
The Privacy Act: actionable without proof of damage
Newfoundland and Labrador is one of only four provinces with a statutory privacy tort, and its wording is as favourable to a claimant as Manitoba’s. The Privacy Act, RSNL 1990, c.P-22:
- s.3(1) — “It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of an individual.”
- s.4(a) — privacy is violated by “surveillance, auditory or visual, whether or not accomplished by trespass, of an individual, by any means including eavesdropping, watching, spying, harassing or following.”
Both limbs matter. “Whether or not accomplished by trespass” means the claimant does not need to establish that your aircraft entered their airspace. “Actionable without proof of damage” means they do not need to show they lost anything. Together they make Newfoundland and Labrador the highest civil-liability province in Atlantic Canada for drone imaging of individuals, and arguably comparable to Quebec’s image-rights exposure.
Trespass: notice required, and the fine is trivial
The Petty Trespass Act, RSNL 1990, c.P-11, works differently from Nova Scotia’s and New Brunswick’s. Section 2 requires that the person “has had notice by word of mouth, or in writing or by posters or signboards, not to trespass” — and the premises listed are shops, factories, schools and other industrial or commercial premises. This is a notice-required regime, unlike NS and NB which capture lawns and gardens without any sign.
Section 2(3) sets the fine at not less than $10 or more than $200. Section 3 provides that where trespass is by motor vehicle, the driver is guilty of the trespass.
Do not read the small number as low risk. The statutory fine in NL is trivial; the Privacy Act tort above is where the actual exposure lives, and it does not depend on trespass at all.
Municipal
St. John’s routes all by-laws through a separate directory application that renders no document list to an automated request, and the parks pages carry no posted rules on drones. I could not confirm the existence or contents of any parks or open-space by-law. If you fly commercially in St. John’s, call 311 and ask — and treat the absence of confirmation here as unverified rather than as permission.
Is there a drone-specific NL statute?
No. No Newfoundland and Labrador statute or regulation uses the words “drone,” “unmanned aerial vehicle” or “RPAS” that I could locate. Section 16 of the Provincial Parks Regulations predates drones by roughly a decade and is generic — which, in this case, works in the province’s favour rather than against it.
One Atlantic-wide point. None of the four Atlantic provinces has a private-sector privacy law, so PIPEDA applies directly to commercial drone imaging in all of them. Only Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec have laws declared substantially similar to PIPEDA. The federal Privacy Commissioner, not a provincial one, is your regulator here.
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
- Nova Scotia drone laws
- New Brunswick drone laws
- Prince Edward Island drone laws
- 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
Do I need a permit to fly a drone in a Newfoundland and Labrador provincial park?
Yes, if you take off or land inside the park. Section 16 of the Provincial Parks Regulations, NLR 91/97, requires a permit from the minister to land an aircraft in or take off from a provincial park, with an exception where a person's health or safety requires it. Drones are caught because an RPAS is an aircraft under the federal Aeronautics Act, though the regulations do not define the term. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province where this restriction sits in a regulation rather than a policy.
What is the penalty for flying a drone in an NL provincial park without a permit?
Section 9 of the Provincial Parks Act, RSNL 1990, c.P-32, provides that a person who fails to comply with the Act or regulations is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $100 or more than $10,000. That is the widest and highest provincial park penalty range in Atlantic Canada.
Why do the published NL park rules not mention drones?
They simply do not — the ParksNL Provincial Park Rules and Regulations 2024 PDF and the ParksNL activities page contain no mention of drones, aircraft or model aircraft. The requirement sits in s.16 of the Provincial Parks Regulations, which a visitor reading only the published rules would never encounter. The regulation governs regardless.
Can I be sued for drone footage in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Yes, and the threshold is low. The Privacy Act, RSNL 1990, c.P-22, s.3(1) creates a tort actionable without proof of damage, and s.4(a) covers surveillance whether or not accomplished by trespass. So a claimant need not show your aircraft entered their airspace, nor that they suffered any loss. That combination makes NL the highest civil-liability province in Atlantic Canada for drone imaging of identifiable individuals.
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.