Ontario drone laws: the parts Transport Canada doesn't set
The federal flying rules are identical across Canada. What changes at the Ontario border is everything underneath them: Ontario Parks prohibits recreational drone use outright and permits commercial or research flights only under an Aircraft Landing Authorization; the Trespass to Property Act carries a $10,000 maximum fine with the burden of proving permission on you; and Ontario is the birthplace of Canada's privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which needs no proof of financial loss. Municipal bylaws vary from an explicit modern drone ban to no provision at all.
Airspace is federal. Land is not. That single division explains almost everything on this page, and it is why a pilot who has read the Canadian Aviation Regulations end to end can still be fined for taking off.
Ontario legislates here as a landowner rather than as an aviation regulator — which is precisely why these rules survive alongside the federal scheme instead of being displaced by it. They do not tell you how to fly. They tell you whether you may be standing where you are.
Ontario Parks: recreational use is banned outright
There is an express provision, and it is narrower than most operators expect while the published policy on top of it is much broader.
O. Reg. 347/07, section 33(1), made under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006:
No person shall land an aircraft in a provincial park.
Section 33(2) allows a landing where the operator holds a valid aircraft landing authorization issued by the superintendent, in one of roughly 73 parks listed in Schedule 2. Separately, section 23(1) prohibits taking an aircraft into a provincial park, or possessing or operating one there, except under a valid provincial park permit — and the regulation's definition of “vehicle” expressly includes an aircraft.
Read literally, section 33 prohibits landing, not overflight. Ontario Parks' own published position goes considerably further:
For the safety of visitors and wildlife, drones of any size are not permitted for recreational purposes (e.g., personal images, social media, family photos) within Ontario Parks.
Commercial filming and research may be permitted, but every operator must first apply for and receive an Ontario Parks Aircraft Landing Authorization. That is the instrument the ministry uses to administer drone permission, which is also the clearest available answer to whether a drone counts as an “aircraft” here. Neither the Act nor the regulation defines the word.
The penalty is the number worth remembering
Section 52 of the Act sets the maximum penalties, and it distinguishes commercial from recreational offences:
| Offence | First conviction | Second or subsequent |
|---|---|---|
| General — s. 52(1) | up to $50,000, up to 1 year, or both | up to $100,000, up to 1 year, or both |
| Committed for a commercial purpose — s. 52(2) | up to $100,000, up to 2 years, or both | up to $200,000, up to 2 years, or both |
Those are statutory maxima rather than typical dispositions, and we could not locate any reported Ontario prosecution of a drone operator under this Act, or any published set-fine amount for a section 33 or section 23 contravention. We are not going to imply an enforcement pattern we cannot evidence. But the exposure is real, and it doubles the moment the flight is commercial.
A trap worth knowing about. Individual park rules pages do not mention drones. We read Algonquin's, which refers operators generically to the Act and to e-Laws. A careful visitor reading the park's own published rules would never learn that the restriction exists.
Trespass: the burden of proof is on you
The Trespass to Property Act, RSO 1990, c. T.21, is what actually bites on launch and landing.
Section 2(1) makes it an offence to enter premises where entry is prohibited, or to engage in a prohibited activity on premises, or to fail to leave when directed. The maximum fine is $10,000.
Two features matter more to a drone operator than the fine does.
First, the reverse onus. The Act says entry without the express permission of the occupier “the proof of which rests on the defendant.” You carry the burden of proving you had permission. Written landowner permission is not merely prudent; it is the defence.
Second, section 3(1), which is the sleeper provision for anyone doing agricultural or rural work. Entry is prohibited without any notice at all on land that is a garden, field or other land under cultivation — including a lawn, orchard, vineyard, young woodlot, or land enclosed in a way that indicates an intention to keep people off. There is no sign to miss. An operator who walks into a farm field to launch has committed the offence before taking off.
Note also that “occupier” is broader than owner: a property manager, a general contractor controlling a site, or an event organiser can all lawfully direct you off, and each can prosecute. Under section 9(1), an occupier — not only a police officer — may arrest without warrant.
The Act was amended by the Safer Municipalities Act, 2025, which received Royal Assent on 5 June 2025 and added aggravating factors on sentencing. The $10,000 maximum was not changed. Sources describing the Act as last amended in 2016 are out of date.
Does flying over private property count as trespass?
This is the question we are asked most often about, and the honest answer is that Ontario law has not settled it. We found no Ontario decision holding that drone overflight of private land is trespass, and none holding that it is not. Anyone telling you otherwise is overstating the authority.
What exists is persuasive common law from elsewhere. Lacroix v The Queen (1954) rejected the old idea that a landowner owns the column of air to the heavens. Bernstein v Skyviews (1978) — an aerial photography case, and the closest factual analogue — held that a landowner's rights in airspace extend only “to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land,” and found no trespass. Didow v Alberta Power (1988) accepted that framing while finding trespass where permanent structures intruded into the airspace above farmland.
The defensible synthesis: a high transit is very unlikely to be trespass. A low hover below roofline over a private yard is where a Canadian court would most plausibly find trespass, or nuisance. That is a prediction, not a holding, and we are flagging it as one.
The more important point is the one operators miss. Even if overflight is not trespass, it can independently found nuisance, a PIPEDA complaint, or the tort in the next section. “Not trespass” is not the same as “lawful.”
Privacy: Ontario wrote Canada's rule on this
Ontario has no private-sector privacy statute. Only Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have laws declared substantially similar to PIPEDA, so PIPEDA applies directly to personal information a commercial operator collects in Ontario — identifiable people, licence plates, the inside of a home through a window.
But the exposure that should concern an operator most is not statutory. It is a tort, and it was created here.
Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32
A bank employee accessed a colleague's personal banking records at least 174 times over four years. The plaintiff suffered no financial loss whatsoever. The motions judge dismissed the claim on the basis that Ontario recognised no tort of invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and recognised, for the first time in Ontario, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
Three elements:
- the conduct must be intentional, which the court said includes reckless;
- the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns; and
- a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
Proof of financial loss is not an element. The tort is actionable without proof of damage. Where there is no pecuniary loss the court set a range of damages of up to $20,000. Jones herself was awarded $10,000.
That $20,000 figure is the top of the range, not the award — it is the most commonly mangled fact about the case.
Why this matters more than the trespass question
The elements map onto drone work uncomfortably well. An operator who hovers over a fenced backyard, images through a window, loiters above a pool, or repeatedly overflies the same residence is exposed on all three: the flight is intentional, there is no lawful justification for imaging domestic space, and a reasonable person may well regard it as highly offensive.
No trespass needs to be established and no loss needs to be shown. You can win the trespass argument and lose the privacy one.
Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner saw this coming. In Privacy and Drones: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, published in August 2012 — seven months after Jones and expressly building on it — the IPC warned that drones present unique challenges “due to their ability to use a variety of sensors to gather information from unique vantage points — often for long periods and on a continuous basis,” confirmed that PIPEDA applies to commercial operators, and recommended privacy impact assessments before deployment.
We found no Ontario decision applying intrusion upon seclusion to a drone, to aerial photography, or to any aerial platform. We are saying so plainly because a great many drone-law pages imply otherwise. The closest analogue is ground-based: a Small Claims Court case in which cameras and floodlights aimed at a neighbour's bedroom and backyard windows founded both nuisance and intrusion upon seclusion, with $8,000 awarded to each plaintiff. We could not verify its neutral citation, so we are not going to give you one.
The 2022 trilogy, and why it does not help you
In November 2022 the Court of Appeal decided Owsianik v Equifax, Obodo v Trans Union and Winder v Marriott together, holding that the tort does not extend to “database defendants” who merely fail to protect data from third-party hackers. The Supreme Court refused leave in all three in July 2023.
The trilogy narrows liability for passive custodians of data while leaving the party who actually performs the intrusive act fully exposed. For aerial imaging, that party is the operator — and increasingly the client who directed the flight.
Ontario's other privacy torts are less settled than commonly claimed. Public disclosure of private facts and false light have been recognised by the Superior Court but not confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and the leading public-disclosure decision was itself set aside on procedural grounds. Only intrusion upon seclusion has appellate authority.
Conservation authorities: 36 of them, no common rule
Ontario's conservation authorities operate under the Conservation Authorities Act, with conduct on their lands governed province-wide by O. Reg. 688/21 (Rules of Conduct in Conservation Areas). We could not retrieve the text of that regulation from a primary source, so we are not going to tell you whether it contains an express aircraft provision.
What we can show you is that the authorities themselves have reached four different answers:
| Authority | Position |
|---|---|
| Grand River | “The personal and recreational use of drones (RPAS) is not permitted.” Commercial use possible under an access or event agreement. The only one that names its statutory instrument. |
| Toronto and Region | Cannot be operated in TRCA parks, lands or campgrounds without authorization. No published process, criteria or fees — only general contact details. |
| Hamilton | Recreational permits will not be issued. Commercial permits require a user agreement and $2 million liability insurance naming the authority as additional insured. |
| Conservation Halton | “Strictly prohibits the operation of commercial or personal aerial drones on any property.” No carve-out and no permit pathway. |
Conservation authorities are also occupiers of their land, so the Trespass to Property Act applies independently — which in practice is how these policies get enforced.
A live illustration of why you cannot trust agency guidance alone. Hamilton Conservation Authority's published drone guidelines require applicants to obtain a Special Flight Operations Certificate from Transport Canada. That requirement was superseded in June 2019 when CARs Part IX came into force; SFOCs now apply only to specified special operations. The guidance has not caught up. A candidate who assumed it tracked current federal law would be preparing for the wrong thing.
We checked four of 36 authorities. Do not generalise from them — check the specific authority for every site, every time.
Municipal bylaws: a genuine patchwork
These are not aviation rules. They are property-management rules made by a municipality as landowner, and they generally bite on operating a device while in a park — on launch, landing and your physical presence — rather than on flight through airspace. Flying from a public sidewalk over a park is, legally, a materially different act from launching inside it.
The vocabulary trap. Most of these bylaws predate consumer drones and say “powered models of aircraft.” They contain no reference to “drone” or “RPAS” and yet plainly capture them. Searching a bylaw for the word “drone” and finding nothing is not the same as there being no rule.
| City | Instrument | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Windsor | Parks By-law 131-2019, s. 6.3 | The best-drafted in Ontario. Names “drones (whether model or otherwise, recreational or non-recreational), unmanned aerial vehicles” expressly. Permit only, and only where the applicant demonstrates compliance with federal and provincial law. |
| Toronto | Municipal Code ch. 608, § 608-19 | No operating powered models of aircraft in a park unless authorized by permit. Toronto may proceed by prosecution or administrative penalty. |
| Hamilton | By-law 01-219, ss. 24–25 | Permit regime, near-identical in structure to Toronto's. |
| Mississauga | Parks By-law 186-05, s. 12(9) | Designated-area regime, not a permit regime — powered model aircraft only in a designated area. We could not identify which areas, if any, are designated. |
| Kingston | By-law 2009-76, s. 5(q) | No flying any powered model aircraft, with no internal permit exception. |
| Brampton | Park Lands By-law 161-83 | No model-aircraft or drone provision at all. Its only aerial rule addresses making an ascent in an aircraft, which naturally describes a person aboard. Untested against drones; we express no view. |
| London | Parks and Recreation Area By-law PR-2 | No aerial provision. We read it: no aircraft, drones, model aircraft, rockets, balloons or gliders. We checked only the parks bylaw — London may address drones elsewhere. |
| Ottawa | Parks and Facilities By-law 2025-251 | Unverified. Ottawa's previous bylaw used a designated-area model. A new bylaw was enacted in 2025 and the City's page for it would not load for us. Confirm directly before relying on anything about Ottawa. |
Penalties in almost every case are set by reference to the Provincial Offences Act rather than stated in the bylaw itself.
If you are working toward certification
None of the above changes the federal pathway, and none of it appears on the exam — but a flight reviewer will ask you which permissions you hold, and land permission is one of them. If you are preparing, the free Basic course and the Advanced certificate guide cover the written side, and we conduct in-person Advanced flight reviews across southern Ontario.
Related reading
- Ontario park and municipal bylaws in more detail
- All 13 provinces and territories compared
- Where you can actually fly a drone in Canada
- What drone insurance actually covers
Questions
Can I fly a drone in an Ontario provincial park?
Not recreationally. Ontario Parks states that drones of any size are not permitted for recreational purposes — personal images, social media, family photos — within Ontario Parks. Commercial filming and research may be permitted, but you must apply for and receive an Ontario Parks Aircraft Landing Authorization first. The underlying regulation, O. Reg. 347/07 s. 33(1), prohibits landing an aircraft in a provincial park; s. 23(1) separately prohibits taking one in without a permit.
What is the fine for flying a drone in an Ontario park?
Under s. 52 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, a first offence carries a maximum of $50,000, up to one year's imprisonment, or both — rising to $100,000 and up to two years where the offence was committed for a commercial purpose. Those are statutory maxima, not typical outcomes, and we could not locate any reported prosecution of a drone operator under this Act.
Is it trespassing to fly a drone over someone's property in Ontario?
Unsettled. There is no Ontario decision either way. Canadian law does not recognise ownership of the whole column of air above a property — landowner rights extend only to the height necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. A high transit is very unlikely to be trespass; a low hover below roofline over a private yard is where a court would most plausibly find trespass or nuisance. Launching or landing on land without permission is straightforwardly an offence under the Trespass to Property Act, maximum fine $10,000, and you carry the burden of proving you had permission.
Can someone sue me for filming their property with a drone in Ontario?
Yes, and they do not need to prove financial loss. Ontario recognises the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, established in Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32. The elements are intentional or reckless conduct, invasion of private affairs without lawful justification, and an invasion a reasonable person would regard as highly offensive. Damages where there is no financial loss run up to $20,000. No trespass needs to be established, which is why the unsettled overflight question offers less protection than operators assume.
Do I need permission to fly over a conservation area in Ontario?
Almost certainly, and the answer differs by authority. Grand River does not permit recreational use but allows commercial use under an access or event agreement. Toronto and Region requires authorization but publishes no process. Hamilton requires a permit plus $2 million liability insurance naming the authority as additional insured, and will not issue recreational permits. Conservation Halton prohibits both commercial and personal drone use outright, with no permit pathway. There are 36 authorities in Ontario; check the specific one.
Which Ontario cities ban drones in parks?
It varies more than people expect. Windsor names drones and UAVs expressly and requires a permit. Toronto and Hamilton require a permit for “powered models of aircraft.” Mississauga permits them only in designated areas. Kingston prohibits flying powered model aircraft with no permit exception. Brampton's parks bylaw has no model-aircraft provision at all, and London's has no aerial provision at all. Ottawa replaced its parks bylaw in 2025 and we could not verify the current text. Most of these bylaws predate consumer drones and use the phrase “powered models of aircraft” rather than the word drone.