Digests

Agriculture

Judicial review of decision by Review Tribunal constituted under Canada Agricultural Products Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 20, cancelling notice of violation issued against respondent and monetary penalty of $500 imposed against it—During an animal auction held by respondent, Levinoff-Colbex abattoir purchased 36 cows that were transported from respondent’s premises to those of purchaser—During slaughtering, veterinarian-inspector with Canadian Food Inspection Agency noticed that one animal did not bear approved tag—Notice of violation then issued under Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, S.C. 1995, c. 40, Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations, SOR/2000-187 for failure to observe prohibition set out in Health of Animals Regulations, C.R.C., c. 296 (Regulations), s. 176—Matter turns on interpretation of Regulations s. 176, more particularly, of words “cause the movement of”—Question is whether respondent has power, control over movement of animal such that respondent causes animal’s movement from premises—Under Regulations, ss. 96, 177, 178(1), 179, 180, 181, 182 and 175(2), respondent subject to obligations clearly applying to various stages of auction sale process it was conducting—Must draw legal inferences flowing from respondent’s legal status—Auctioneer exercises, from legal standpoint, control over property he sells at auction—Respondent thus contravened Regulations, s. 176 by delivering untagged animal to purchaser, purchaser’s representative—By so doing, it caused the movement of animal from its farm, ranch as defined in s. 172—Application allowed.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Denfield Livestock Sales Limited (A‑575-08, 2010 FCA 36, Létourneau J.A., judgment dated February 3, 2010, 22 pp.)