1. INTRODUCTION

[1] The Applicant (Mr. Radu) requested a review by the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal (Tribunal) of the Minister’s decision upholding the issuance of Notice of Violation # 3961-18-1690 (Violation) with a penalty of $1300 by the Canada Border Services Agency (Agency). The Violation alleges that on September 18, 2019, Mr. Radu failed to present for inspection 3 kg of smoke swine meat (bacon) upon entering Canada, contrary to section 16(1) of the Health Animal Act.

2. THE SETTLEMENT

[2] On February 9, 2021, the Agency made Mr. Radu a written offer to settle this case by amending the Violation originally issued with a penalty of $1300 to a NOV with warning, without monetary penalty.

[3] Mr. Radu accepted this offer via email on February 10, 2021.

[4] The Agency’s settlement offer noted that a violation will remain in the Agency’s records for a period of six years from the date of violation. In addition, the existing record of the violation may be considered in the event of any future instances of non-compliance.

[5] This settlement constitutes a final settlement of the rights of both parties in relation to docket CART-2063 and the events which occurred on September 18, 2019.

This settlement should not be cited as a precedent or otherwise relied on except in relation to the Violation in this case.

3. THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION TO GIVE EFFECT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[6] The Tribunal has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of fact or law regarding any matter over which it is given jurisdiction under the Agriculture and Agri- Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAAMPA) or any Act of Parliament. [1]

[7] The Tribunal is a court of record [2] and has powers over all matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction and to fulfil the purpose and objective of the statutory regime.

[8] The Rules of the Review Tribunal (Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal) (Rules) are interpreted and applied in order to permit the just, most expeditious and least expensive conduct of proceedings. The Tribunal may determine any procedural matter not provided for in the Rules in a manner consistent with the Rules.

[9] The Tribunal does not have the explicit authority to vary a Violation with penalty to a Violation without penalty. However, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction by necessary implication and practical necessity to give effect to the settlement agreement as demonstrated in the Tribunal's decision in Atkinson [3] .

4. ORDER

[10] The Tribunal confirms, by ORDER, the settlement agreement, including the Agency amending the Violation originally issued with a penalty of $1300 to a Violation with warning, without monetary penalty.

[11] The Tribunal informs Mr. Radu that this violation is not a criminal offence. After five years, he may apply to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to have the violation removed from the records, in accordance with section 23 of the AAAMPA.

Dated at Québec, Québec, on this 25^th day of March 2021.

Geneviève Parent

Member

Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal