Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant was penalized for failing to declare meat products upon entry into Canada under subsection 16(1) of the Health of Animals Act

• At issue was whether her partial declarations at an airport kiosk and later acknowledgment during inspection met legal disclosure obligations

• The Tribunal upheld the $1,300 penalty, concluding that the declaration was incomplete and untimely

• The applicant argued her E311 customs card should suffice, but it was neither collected nor legally determinative

• The court confirmed that mistaken belief or due diligence is not a defense under the AAMP Penalties Act

• The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application and awarded $1,000 in costs to the Attorney General

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and initial proceedings

Anna Fedorenko arrived at Toronto Pearson International Airport and completed her customs declaration at a self-serve primary inspection kiosk (PIK). She answered "yes" to a question about possessing food items including meat and "no" to another question regarding live animals or other meat products beyond a specified list. Upon further inspection prompted by a detector dog, border services discovered substantial quantities of undeclared meat products in her bag, including 2.2 kg of chicken sausage, 1.3 kg of beef sausage, and 5.4 kg of pork ears and sausage.

She was issued a notice of violation under section 7 of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAMP Penalties Act) and fined $1,300, as per the associated regulations. She appealed the notice and penalty to the Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal, which upheld the penalty.

Judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeal

Fedorenko sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, asserting that she had sufficiently declared the products and that the Tribunal failed to consider exemptions under section 40 of the Health of Animals Regulations. She also argued that her E311 declaration card, filled out on the airplane, supported her compliance.

The Court of Appeal assessed the case under the reasonableness standard set out in Vavilov, focusing on whether the Tribunal's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible. The Court found the Tribunal had reasonably concluded that Fedorenko’s declarations were inadequate. The PIK answers were internally inconsistent, and she did not mention the meat until directly confronted during secondary inspection.

Rejection of key defenses

The Court rejected the relevance of the uncollected E311 card, affirming that such documents do not absolve travelers of their legal obligation to make full and clear disclosures when questioned by border agents. It emphasized that the AAMP Penalties Act creates a strict liability regime where defenses based on honest mistake or due diligence are explicitly ruled out.

Additionally, the court found that any potential exemption under section 40 of the Health of Animals Regulations would still require the items to be declared, to enable inspection and determination of eligibility.

Final decision and consequences

The Federal Court of Appeal found no legal or factual error in the Tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed Fedorenko’s application. It awarded the Attorney General of Canada $1,000 in all-inclusive costs. No damages were awarded, and the original $1,300 penalty remained upheld.