Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged an administrative decision affirming liability under the Health of Animals Regulations for animal welfare violations.

• The tribunal found the applicant caused the transport of chickens in extreme cold without verifying prior animal care concerns.

• Section 146 of the Health of Animals Regulations was central, prohibiting transport likely to cause animal suffering.

• The tribunal ruled that liability can arise not only from actions but also from omissions in regulatory compliance.

• Arguments based on the absence of a “transfer of care” document under section 153(2) were rejected.

• The court upheld the tribunal’s interpretation and dismissed the application with costs awarded to the government.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and regulatory context

The case involved Ferme Avicole Laplante Ltée / Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd, a poultry processor, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal. The tribunal had upheld a notice of violation under section 146 of the Health of Animals Regulations, made pursuant to the Health of Animals Act. This section prohibits the transport or causing the transport of animals in conditions likely to result in suffering, injury, or death due to inadequate ventilation or environmental exposure.

The facts center on a shipment of broiler chickens that occurred in January 2022. Prior to the shipment, the poultry supplier warned Laplante Poultry that it was struggling to keep the chickens' litter dry. Despite this, Laplante confirmed the shipment without verifying whether the issue had been resolved. The chickens were wet when loaded and transported in extremely cold weather, leading to the death of 67 birds during transport.

Tribunal’s reasoning

The tribunal concluded that Laplante Poultry “caused” the transport within the meaning of the regulations because it placed the order and exercised operational control over the shipment. The failure to follow up on the supplier’s warnings was viewed as an omission that attracted liability. The tribunal also rejected Laplante’s argument that the absence of a formal “transfer of care” document under section 153(2) should relieve it of responsibility. It held that such a provision only applied when the consignee was not otherwise involved in the transport process, which was not the case here.

Judicial review and the court’s decision

The court reviewed the tribunal's decision and found it reasonable and consistent with the objectives of the Health of Animals Act, particularly the protection of animal welfare. The argument that regulatory liability requires the receipt of a “transfer of care” document was dismissed as incompatible with the broad and proactive obligations under section 146. The court emphasized that purchasers like Laplante Poultry must take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable risks of animal suffering, especially when prior warnings exist.

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court awarded fixed costs of $3,500 against Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd in favor of the Attorney General of Canada.