AGRICULTURE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Magnowski
A-323-03
2003 FCA 492, Rothstein J.A.
17/12/03
6 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Canadian Food Inspection Agency Review Tribunal (Tribunal)--Cows at auction not having proper ear tags--Tribunal held respondent did not commit violation and not liable for $500 penalty--Read in isolation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (Act), s. 19 would justify Tribunal weighing evidence and concluding on balance of probabilities respondent did not commit violation--However, due diligence or reasonable and honest belief cows tagged not permissible defences (Act, s. 18(1))--Evidence before Tribunal that when cows inspected, they did not have ear tags--Cows taken to Ponoka day following inspection--Prima facie, inference to be drawn from that evidence was that cows removed from respondent's farm without ear tags--Open to respondent to provide proof cows did have ear tags when removed from farm--However, for respondent to say that he believed cows had ear tags when they left farm, not permissible defence, especially when he conceded he did not do inspection at that time--Other explanations statements of due diligence and belief, also not permissible defences--No relevant evidence before Tribunal to refute appellant's prima facie evidence cows had no ear tags and inference cows therefore removed from farm without ear tags--Appeal allowed--Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, S.C. 1995, c. 40, ss. 18(1), 19.