1. INTRODUCTION

[1] This matter concerns the request for review of Notice of Violation (Notice) # 2021ON0013 pursuant to paragraph 9(2)(c) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAAMP Act).

[2] The issue is to determine the admissibility of this request. I must evaluate whether or not 1230890 Ontario Limited, doing business as Warner Transport (Warner), satisfies the admissibility threshold established by the AAAMP Act, the Agriculture and Agri Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (AAAMP Regulations) and the Rules of the Review Tribunal (Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal) (Tribunal Rules).

[3] On August 5, 2021, Warner was served with this Notice after it was suspected, on July 26, 2021 of having loaded an animal in a manner that results in or adds to a conveyance or container being overcrowded. Thereby, this contravened section 148 of the Health of Animals Regulations (HA Regulations). This violation is classified as “Very serious” and was served with a penalty of $ 11,000.

[4] In accordance with subsections 11(2) and 14(1) of the AAAMP Regulations, I find Warner’s request for review is inadmissible for the following reasons, notably, that it had not respected the prescribed manner of filing a request for review within the 30-day statutory period. As confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Clare, this is a strict deadline which the Tribunal does not hold jurisdiction “to deviate from”. [1] Therefore, Warner is deemed to have committed the violation in accordance with subsection 9(3) of the AAAMP Act.

2. BACKGROUND

[5] On August 23, 2021, Warner filed a request for review of the Notice via regular mail. The request for review was received by the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal (Tribunal) on September 17, 2021.

[6] On September 17, 2021, the Tribunal sent a first acknowledgement letter to both parties requesting them to comply with sections 30 and 31 of the Tribunal Rules on or before October 4, 2021. Additionally, Warner was urged to comply with section 13 of the Tribunal Rules by sending the request via registered mail to the Tribunal in order to allow its request for review to be considered for admissibility.

[7] On September 21, 2021, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Agency) complied with section 30 of the Tribunal Rules, by filing a copy of the Notice with the Tribunal via email.

3. ISSUE

[8] Does Warner meet the admissibility threshold established in the AAAMP Act and its regulations? The threshold consists of three requirements:

1. filing the request for review in the prescribed time and manner;
2. the non-payment of the penalty associated to the notice of violation, if applicable; and
3. providing the required information and motives of the request for review in accordance with the Tribunal Rules.

4. ANALYSIS

[9] The legislative scheme encompassed in the AAAMP Act provides a review mechanism whereby a Notice can be reviewed either by the Minister or by the Tribunal. In this case, Warner has elected to proceed by way of direct review by the Tribunal.

[10] The AAAMP Act, the AAAMP Regulations and the Tribunal Rules require that the Tribunal, before it proceeds to a full hearing of a matter, makes a decision on the admissibility of an applicant’s request for the review. Absolute bars to admissibility arise when the applicant has already paid the penalty attached to the Notice, or has failed to file a request for review within the prescribed time and manner as set out in the AAAMP Act and the AAAMP Regulations.

[11] Subsections 11(2), 14(1) and 14(2) of the AAAMP Regulations outline the required statutory period and the permitted modes of delivery for the filing of a request for review of the facts of a violation before the Tribunal.

[12] Under the abovementioned provisions, Warner had the responsibility to file the request for review by a permitted method of transmission within 30 days after having been served the Notice, according to subsections 11(2) and 14(1) of the AAAMP Regulations. Reiterating the principle enounced in Clare, the Tribunal is not authorized to bend this strict deadline, and the request for review will have to be considered as not received within the statutory period. [2] Since the Tribunal had not received the request for review within the 30-day period, there is no valid request for review before the Tribunal.

[13] Given my findings with regards to the first threshold requirement, it is not necessary to consider the other two requirements.

5. ORDER

[14] For the aforementioned reasons, I ORDER that the request for review is inadmissible.

[15] Finally, I wish to inform Warner that this violation is not a criminal offence. After five years, Warner is entitled to apply to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to have the Notice removed from the records, in accordance with section 23 of the AAAMP Act.

Dated at Ottawa, Ontario, on this 12^th day of November 2021.

Luc Bélanger

Chairperson

Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal