Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), (2009) 395 N.R. 176 (FCA)

• Judge: Létourneau, Blais and Trudel, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 13, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 395 N.R. 176 (FCA);2009 FCA 152;157 NR 380;[1993] 2 CTC 213;[1993] FCJ No 777 (QL);47 DTC 5357

Doyon v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 395 N.R. 176 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.R. TBEd. JN.027

Michel Doyon (demandeur) v. Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(A-513-08; 2009 FCA 152; 2009 CAF 152)

Indexed As: Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Létourneau, Blais and Trudel, JJ.A.

May 13, 2009.

Summary:

The Review Tribunal (Agriculture and Agri-Food) found that a hog farmer violated the absolute liability provisions of s. 138(2)(a) of the Health of Animals Regulations, which provided that no one "shall transport or cause to be transported an animal (a) that by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey". The farmer was fined a monetary penalty of $2,000 under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. The farmer applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application and quashed the finding of a violation as unreasonable.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - [See second Animals - Topic 7043 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5016

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Failure to consider or take something into account - [See second Animals - Topic 7043 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5023

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Unsupported fact findings - [See second Animals - Topic 7043 ].

Animals - Topic 7043

Offences - Particular offences - Unlawful transportation of animals - Section 138(2)(a) of the Health of Animals Regulations provided that no one "shall transport or cause to be transported an animal (a) that by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey" - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "as this provision triggers a substantial monetary penalty, we must guard against a liberal interpretation that extends the scope of the essential elements, which are already quite broad, given the fact that the person who has committed the violation has absolute liability, that the prosecutor has a considerably reduced burden of proof and that the person who has committed a violation risks higher penalties in the event of a subsequent violation" - See paragraph 49.

Animals - Topic 7043

Offences - Particular offences - Unlawful transportation of animals - The Review Tribunal (Agriculture and Agri-Food) found that a hog farmer violated the absolute liability provisions of s. 138(2)(a) of the Health of Animals Regulations, which provided that no one "shall transport or cause to be transported an animal (a) that by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey" - The farmer was fined a monetary penalty of $2,000 under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act - The Federal Court of Appeal, applying the reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's finding of mixed fact and law, quashed the verdict as unreasonable - The transported hog suffered from arthritis - The authorities had to establish, inter alia, that the hog could not be transported without unduly suffering, that it suffered unduly during the expected journey and that there was a causal link between the transportation, the undue suffering and the animal's infirmity - The Tribunal erred in proceeding on the assumption that if suffering was proven at the time of loading, transportation would inevitably result in undue suffering - The prosecutor had to prove a causal link between the undue suffering and the transportation - The Tribunal excluded the farmer's credible evidence without analyzing it or giving any reason for rejecting it - Further the Tribunal ignored the evidence obtained in cross-examining the veterinary surgeon which weakened and even contradicted her evidence that led to the verdict (e.g., surgeon testified that the hog had trouble when moving, yet admitted in cross-examination that she only viewed the hog for five minutes and did not see it moving) - The Tribunal also failed to analyze the evidence to establish the necessary causal link between transportation and undue suffering - Further, s. 138(2)(a) spoke of undue suffering on the "expected journey" - Consideration was not given to the fact that the expected journey was doubled because of circumstances beyond the farmer's control - Finally, apart from the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, there were other factors that diminished the quality and reliability of that evidence - See paragraphs 30 to 73.

Cases Noticed:

Fermes G. Godbout et Fils Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2006), 366 N.R. 145; 2006 FCA 408, refd to. [para. 11].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, [2008] C.A.R.T.D. No. 9, refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Porcherie des Cèdres Inc. et al. (2005), 337 N.R. 119; 2005 FCA 59, refd to. [para. 30].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Food Inspection Agency v. Samson (2005), 339 N.R. 264; 2005 FCA 235, refd to. [para. 33].

Bellefleur v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 377 N.R. 205; 2008 FCA 13, refd to. [para. 54].

Parks v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 228 N.R. 130 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Renaud (2007), 371 N.R. 283; 2007 FCA 328, refd to. [para. 54].

Maher v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] N.R. Uned. 148; 2006 FCA 223, refd to. [para. 54].

Industrial Teletype Electronics Corporation v. City of Montreal, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 629; 10 N.R. 517, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Health of Animals Act Regulations (Can.), Health of Animals Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 296, sect. 138(2)(a) [para. 4].

Health of Animals Regulations - see Health of Animals Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Ghislain Richer, for the applicant;

Nadine Perron, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Richler & Associés, Sherbrooke, Quebec, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This  application  was  heard on  May 7, 2009, at Québec, Quebec, before Létourneau, Blais and Trudel, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On May 13, 2009, Létourneau, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.