[2017] 3 F.C.R. D-5
Animals
Judicial review of Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal decision rejecting applicant’s arguments that Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, S.C. 1995, c. 40, s. 18(1) (Act) infringing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d) — Applicant part of conglomerate in pork industry — Asking Tribunal to review notices of violation issued by Canadian Food Inspection Agency as result of violations of Health of Animals Regulations, C.R.C., c. 296, s. 138(2)(a) — Applicant not challenging fact that administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) established in keeping with Regulations — However, applicant alleging that Act, s. 18(1) not constitutional, since contravening Charter, s. 7 by prohibiting defences of due diligence, reasonable mistake of fact — Applicant also alleging that Act, s. 19 not constitutional since contravening Charter, s. 11(d) given that Minister must prove violation only on balance of probabilities — To support arguments, applicant submitting three affidavits from small transportation companies all claiming to have difficulty meeting Act’s requirements — Regarding Act, s. 19, Tribunal finding, inter alia, that AMP regime not infringing presumption of innocence, right to fair trial protected by Charter, s. 11(d) — Tribunal reiterating that s. 11 protections available only to persons “charged with an offence”, therefore to persons subject to criminal prosecution, not to individuals subject to AMP — Regarding Act, s. 18, Tribunal not accepting applicant’s arguments that quasi-absolute liability regime infringing right to security of person in manner not consistent with principles of fundamental justice — Tribunal finding that applicant failing to establish infringement of right to security, therefore not ruling on whether Act, s. 18(1) complying with principles of fundamental justice — Whether Tribunal erring in finding that Act, s. 18(1) not infringing Charter, s. 7 — Act, s. 18(1) Act not infringing right to security of person protected by Charter, s. 7 — Not demonstrated that AMP regime jeopardizing economic viability of affiants or their household, or left affiants in state of psychological distress potentially leading to concerns for their health — Violations of security of person “include only serious psychological incursions resulting from state interference with an individual interest of fundamental importance” (Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44) — Blencoe instructive as to nature of state actions likely to violate security of person — Impact contraventions may have had on life of affiants not on same scale as stigmatization, psychological stress, financial difficulties Mr. Blencoe experiencing — Applicant could not cite any precedent in support of argument that state regulation of economic sector activity can cause enough stress to trigger application of Charter, s. 7 — Absolute liability offence in criminal law likely to violate principles of fundamental justice only in case of prison sentence — However, Act not providing for any prison sentence; AMP regime Act establishing clearly administrative in nature — Application dismissed.
Mario Côté Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-544-15, 2017 FCA 36, de Montigny, J.A., judgment dated February 16, 2017, 20 pp.)