Relevant Decisions
Below are some decisions by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) and the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal (Tribunal) about Tribunal files.
This list can help you find cases that you can use to prepare your case.
For more decisions, please see the Canadian Legal Information Institute website or the Tribunal’s decisions database.
This list is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult a lawyer.
| Topic | Decision | Key take aways |
|---|---|---|
| Admissibility (Whether the Tribunal can consider the request for review) | Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 152 at paras 24-25 | A hard copy does not have to be sent to the Registry after a request is made by fax or email |
| Clare v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 265, at para 24 | The Tribunal must follow the strict application of the AAAMP Act and AAAMP Regulations | |
| Adebogun v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 242 at para 11 | A document sent by registered mail is considered served on the 10th day after it was sent | |
| Reference re section 14 of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (CA), 2012 FCA 130 at para 25 | Regular mail is not an authorized way of making a request | |
| Hershkovitz v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 38 at para 9 | The payment of the penalty ends the proceedings. A request for review can not be filed with the Tribunal | |
| Bogdanov v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2025 CART 27 at paras 6-15 | Applicants are not required to provide the reason(s) for their request for review before the Tribunal | |
| Role of the Tribunal | Canada (Attorney General) v Chu, 2022 FCA 105 at para 8 | The role of the Tribunal is to:
The Tribunal cannot review the Minister’s discretion to issue a penalty |
| The Tribunal’s role when reviewing a Minister’s decision | Hachey Livestock Transport Ltd. v Canada (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2015 CART 19 at para 51 | A review of a Minister’s decision requires the Tribunal to make its own conclusion on the case (called a de novo review). |
| Burden of proof | Doyon v Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 152 at paras 20, 21-29 | Important decision on:
|
| Burden of proof – balance of probabilities | Canada (Attorney General) v Rosemont Livestock, 2011 FCA 25 at paras 11-12 | What is the balance of probabilities |
| Essential elements | Canada (Attorney General) v Stanford, 2014 FCA 234 at paras 49-51 | Knowledge can be an essential element of a violation |
| Weight of the evidence | Canada (Attorney General ) v F. Ménard Inc., 2017 FCA 94 at paras 3-4 | The Tribunal may prefer the evidence of one expert over the other |
| Liability and causation | Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2017 FCA 45 at paras 66-67 | A person commits a violation if they could stop a violation from continuing but fail to do so |
| Employer Liability | Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 05 at paras 13-28 | Liability of the employer for his employee’s actions |
| Guidelines and policies | Canada (Attorney General) v L. Bilodeau et Fils Ltée, 2017 FCA 5 at para 10 | Guidelines and policies from the agencies are not binding and do not have the force of law |
| Defences | Gantcheff v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 317 at para 9 | Absolute liability regime –
|
| Common law defence - automatism | Canada (Attorney General) v Klevtsov, 2018 FCA 196 at paras 8-9 | For automatism to be shown, there must be:
|
| Alleged Unfairness | Brussels Transport Ltd. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 20 at paras 30-32 | Alleged unfairness in the Agency’s enforcement practice is not a permissible defence |
| Discrimination | Canada (Attorney General) v Bougachouch, 2014 FCA 63 at paras 33-36 | Discrimination – racial profiling An impression is not evidence Secondary inspection |
| Discrimination | Canada (Attorney General) v Tam, 2014 FCA 220 at paras 8-15 | Discrimination – racial profiling Secondary inspection |
| Constitutional challenges | Mario Côté Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 36 at paras 12-13 | The Tribunal has the authority to deal with constitutional questions The Tribunal cannot make a declaration of invalidity of a statute or provision The Tribunal must simply disregard a statute or provision that is inconsistent with the Charter for the purpose of the matter before it Sections 18 and 19 of the AAAMP Act do not infringe Charter rights |
| Calculating the penalty | A. S. L’Heureux Inc. v Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2018 CART 9 at paras 18-26 | Explanation of how the amount of the penalty is calculated |
| Penalty amount- in the course of business | Zonnekeyn v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 25 at paras 21-29 | The penalty is calculated differently if the violation is committed in the course of business or for financial gain |
| Limited Financial Ressources | Gyamfua v Canada Border Services Agency, 2024 CART 22 at paras 15-16 | The Tribunal does not have the authority to reduce or cancel the penalty because of limited financial resources |
| Statutory interpretation | Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 152 at para 20 | The Tribunal must consider key elements of a statutory provision’s text, context or purpose to reasonably interpret the provision |
| Judicial review – premature | Favel Transportation Inc. v Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FCA 99 at para 5 | Absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of a Tribunal decision may only be brought after a final decision has been issued. |
| Failure to Give Notification of a Reportable Disease or Toxic Substance (s. 5(1) of the HA Act) | Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2025 CART 44 at paras 4, 26-36 and 60-66 | Elements of the violation Meaning of “any fact indicating its presence” Extent of the obligation to notify the nearest veterinary inspector of the presence of a reportable disease |
| Importation violations (s. 16 of the HA Act ; s. 40 of the HA Regulations) | Canada (Attorney General) v Savoie-Forgeot, 2014 FCA 26 at paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25 | What is importation What is the duty to declare When does importation occur |
| Canada Border Services Agency v Castillo, 2013 FCA 271 at para 24 | It is the responsibility of the person to know what is in their luggage Being unaware of the animal product in personal luggage is not a defence |
|
| Canada (Attorney General) v El Kouchi, 2013 FCA 292 at paras 14-16 | It is the responsibility of the person to know what is in their luggage | |
| Canada (Border Services Agency) v Tao, 2014 FCA 52 at paras 25-28 | There is no right to remain silent during a customs inspection | |
| Fedorenko v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 147 at para 6-9 | Checking “yes” on a declaration card is not a sufficient declaration – a person must also answer the questions from officers truthfully Misunderstanding a question on a declaration card is not a defence |
|
| Failure to declare at time of importation | Ralifara v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2024 CART 26 at para 8 | The fact that the food might be allowed entry is not relevant. The issue was whether the Applicant declared that she was importing food. |
| Violation - Make a false or misleading statement | 8504911 Canada Inc. (d.b.a. Olvil Sales) v Minister of Health, 2023 CART 10 at paras 15-22 | False information on a food label – olive oil (section 6 of Safe food for Canadians Act) |
| Sadykow v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 21 at paras 14-25 | False information on certificate or import permit (section 14 of Health of Animals Regulations) | |
| Krazy Cherry Fruit Company Ltd. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2022 CART 22 at paras 28-37 | False or misleading statement to an inspector (subsection 23(1) of Plant Protection Act) | |
| Zonnekeyn v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 25 at paras 16-20 | False or misleading statement to an officer (section 35 of Health of Animals Act) | |
| Zecoya Inc. v Health Canada, 2025 CART 33 at paras 30-34 | The test for finding a false statement under subsection 46(1) of the Pest Control Products Act is objective. Intent does not need to be proven | |
| Hinder an inspector | Falk v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2020 CART 09 at paras 28-34 | Analysis of what it means to obstruct or hinder an inspector. Violation repealed, but almost identical violations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act are still in force |
| Transportation of animals Part 12 of the Health of Animals Regulations | Decision | Key take aways |
|---|---|---|
| Overcrowding – Factual Finding | Attorney General of Canada v 1230890 Ontario Limited, 2026 FCA 4 at paras 6-8 | Overcrowding is a factual finding that is determined at the time of loading; focused on the criteria in subsection 148(2) of the HA Regs. The subjective beliefs, perspectives or opinions of those involved – as opposed to the factual observations at the time – are irrelevant considerations to assess overcrowding |
| Overcrowding - Sufficiency of Evidence | Vernla Livestock Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 20 at para 13 | The Agency has not provided sufficient evidence of the average weight of the hogs transported to determine if the animals were overcrowded |
| Overcrowding – Policy Interpretation | Earl MacDonald and Son Transport Limited v Canadian Food Inspection Agency,2024 CART 17 at paras 26, 29 | Overcrowding is defined at subsection 148(2) of the HA Regs The different Codes of Practice and Load Density Calculator are not binding but help the industry to comply with animal welfare |
| Overcrowding – Loading Densities | 1230890 Ontario Limited v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 06 at paras 15-26 | Loading densities in the trailer and in each compartment has been reduced because of the weather. The trailer was not overcrowded |
| Overcrowding - Calculation | 1230890 Ontario Limited v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 27 at para 8 | The Tribunal must determine whether overcrowding occurred because the number of animals in the container made it likely that an animal would suffer, sustain an injury or die Determining when overcrowding occurs is based on the likelihood of a future event. It is not “outcome-based”. |
| Protection from Inadequate Ventilation and Weather Conditions – Foreseeable Weather | 1230890 Ontario Limited v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 04 at paras 23-28 | A transporter must assess the animals’ capacity to withstand transportation based on numerous factors pursuant subsections 138.3 of the HA Regulations. One of these factors is the foreseeable weather |
| Protection from Inadequate Ventilation and Weather Conditions - Causation | Brian’s Poultry Services Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 19 at para 7 | The question the Tribunal had to answer is whether the Applicant’s crew did anything that made it likely that the chickens would suffer, sustain an injury, or die by being exposed to meteorological or environmental conditions |
| Protection from Inadequate Ventilation and Weather Conditions | Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 05 at paras 29-34 | The animals (chickens) were transported without the adequate tarps to protect them from the cold; therefore they were likely to suffer, be injured or die from the cold weather |
| Protection from Inadequate Ventilation and Weather Conditions – Likelihood of Violation | S & G Bobcat Service Ltd. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 27 at paras 26-28 | It was likely that the chickens would suffer, be injured, or die, when they were placed in a trailer (into modules) that would become soaked with icy water when the weather was cold |
| Transporting Unfit Animals s. 139 of the Health of Animals Regulations – Meaning of Unfit and Compromised | Hamel v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 01 at paras 4-8 and 35-45 | Unfit and compromised are defined in the HA Regulations under subsection 136(1) |
| Transporting Unfit Animals s. 139 of the Health of Animals Regulations – difference between unfit and compromised | Tollgate Farm v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2023 CART 19 at paras 15-31 | The animal could not be loaded and transported because it was unfit and not compromised. |
| Transporting Unfit Animals s. 139 of the Health of Animals Regulations – illustration of an unfit animal | Rubino v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024 CART 09, at paras 12, 17 | The animal was extremely thin and therefore unfit. It could not be transported |
| Transporting Compromised Animals s. 140 the Health of Animals Regulation – conditions to transport | 9126-5553 Québec Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2025 CART 03 at para 26 | The conditions to transport a compromised animal under paragraphs 140(1)(a) to (d) of the HA Regulations are cumulative |
| Transporting Compromised Animals s. 140 the Health of Animals Regulation – definition of compromised | 9126-5553 Québec Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2025 CART 11 at para 31 | An animal does not have to exhibit signs of pain or suffering to meet the definition of “compromised” |
| Transfer of care – s. 153 of the Health of Animals Regulations | Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 155 at para 9 | A person who transports animals is not absolved of liability under the Health of Animals Act and Regulations if a transfer of care document has not been issued to them |