1. INTRODUCTION

[1] On September 16, 2024, the Applicant arrived in Canada at an airport in Quebec. At an inspection kiosk, the Applicant said that she was not importing animal products. However, the Applicant was importing pork sausages.

[2] After discovering the sausages in the Applicant’s possession, the Canada Border Services Agency (the Agency) issued a Notice of Violation (Notice) with a monetary penalty of $1,300.00 for failing to present the meat for inspection.

[3] The Applicant requested that the Respondent review the penalty. In its decision, the Respondent upheld both the Notice and the monetary penalty.

[4] The Applicant has requested that I review the Respondent’s decision. For the reasons that follow, I confirm that decision.

2. LEGAL ISSUES

[5] There is no dispute that the violation was established. The Applicant acknowledges, and the evidence establishes, that she imported and failed to present the sausages for inspection. This was contrary to subsection 16(1) of the Health of Animals Act (HA Act).

[6] Where the parties disagree is whether any of the Applicant’s defences should have an impact on the issuance of the Notice or the amount of the penalty.

[7] My role under paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAAMP Act) is to determine whether the Respondent’s decision should be confirmed, varied or set aside.

3. ANALYSIS

Honest Mistake

[8] The Applicant testified that she made a mistake because of a stressful family situation, which made her forget about the food she was importing.

[9] Section 18 of the AAAMP Act states that a person named in a Notice “does not have a defence” even where a person “reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person” (i.e., made a mistake). Section 18 of the AAAMP Act is what makes the system “absolute liability”.

[10] As a result, the Applicant’s mistake is not a permissible defence.

The Amount of the Penalty

[11] The Applicant requested that the amount of the penalty be reduced or eliminated entirely because she cannot afford to pay it.

[12] The Minister’s decision noted that because a violation of subsection 16(1) of the HA Act is “very serious”, the penalty pursuant to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (AAAMP Regulations) is $1,300.00.

[13] The reason the amount of the penalty was $1,300.00 was because Item 11 of Column 1 of Division 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the AAAMP Regulations states that a violation of subsection 16(1) of the HA Act is a “very serious” violation.

[14] Paragraph 5(1)(c) of the AAAMP Regulations states that the amount of the penalty for a “very serious violation” by an individual (who is not a business or trying to make a profit) is $1,300.00. Had the Applicant been importing the sausages for business, the penalty amount would have been considerably higher.

[15] Once the officer decided to impose a financial penalty for a breach of subsection 16(1) of the HA Act, the amount in these circumstances was necessarily $1,300.00. Any other amount would not have complied with the Regulations, whether it was her first or a subsequent violation.

[16] In Canada (Attorney General) v Chu, 2022 FCA 105 at para 7, the Federal Court of Appeal wrote that once the Tribunal has determined that there has been a violation of subsection 16(1) of the HA Act, “the role of the Tribunal [is] limited to determining whether the penalty was established according to the Regulations.”

[17] Although I am sympathetic to the Applicant’s personal situation, given the decision in Chu and because the penalty amount was properly calculated, I cannot change the amount of the penalty.

4. CONCLUSION

[18] The Minister’s decision is confirmed.

[19] The Applicant shall pay the penalty within 30 days.

Dated on this 26^th day of September 2025.

Emily Crocco

Member and Chairperson

Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal