Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The core issue involved the proper interpretation of section 6.2 of the Health of Animals Regulations regarding removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM).

• The Attorney General argued the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s interpretation was improperly set aside by the tribunal.

• The tribunal treated abattoirs performing all processing steps on-site differently than others, effectively creating dual regulatory standards.

• Judges found that the tribunal's interpretation conflicted with public health objectives and regulatory text.

• Expert testimony emphasized that SRM must be removed at slaughter to prevent contamination, contradicting the tribunal’s reasoning.

• The court found the tribunal's decision unreasonable and remanded the matter for reconsideration, awarding $2,000 in costs to the Attorney General.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case originated when Abattoir Zampini Inc., a local meat processing facility in Quebec, was cited for violations of section 6.2 of the Health of Animals Regulations. These provisions require the complete removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM) — tissues like the brain and spinal cord that may carry mad cow disease — from cattle over 30 months of age processed for human consumption. Following three inspections in 2020 and 2021, inspectors noted the presence of SRM on carcasses and improperly stored bovine heads, leading to warnings and a $10,000 administrative monetary penalty issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Abattoir Zampini challenged the CFIA’s findings before the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal, which sided with the company. The tribunal concluded that section 6.2 did not require immediate removal of all SRM at the slaughter stage for abattoirs performing slaughtering, cutting, and deboning under one roof. Instead, it allowed for staged removal up to the deboning phase, interpreting the regulation as creating a flexible compliance timeline for such facilities.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for judicial review, asserting that the tribunal’s interpretation undermined public health objectives and contradicted both regulatory language and scientific evidence. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice LeBlanc held that the tribunal's reading introduced an impermissible distinction between abattoirs, creating inconsistent obligations and undermining the purpose of the regulation — namely, to prevent the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

The Court emphasized that all operators, regardless of facility type, are equally bound by section 6.2, which mandates SRM removal at the time of slaughter. The Court gave significant weight to expert testimony and regulatory history showing that SRM must be removed early to minimize contamination risk.

Finding the tribunal’s decision unreasonable and inconsistent with both regulatory intent and scientific evidence, the Court annulled the decision and ordered the case returned to a newly constituted panel of the tribunal for redetermination. Additionally, the Court awarded the Attorney General $2,000 in legal costs, as agreed upon by the parties. No damages were awarded, as the matter concerned administrative review rather than civil liability.