RTA# 60130
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE
MONETARY PENALTIES ACT
DECISION
In the matter of an application for a review of the facts of a violation pursuant to subsection 139(2) of the Health of Animals Regulations, alleged by the Respondent, and requested by the Applicant pursuant to paragraph 8(1) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
Bill Toll, Applicant
- and -
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Respondent
CHAIRMAN BARTON
Decision
Following a review of the written submissions of the parties, including the report of the Respondent, the Tribunal, by order, determines the Applicant committed the violation.
.../2
RTA# 60130
Page 2
REASONS
The Applicant did not request an oral hearing.
The Notice of Violation dated April 15, 2004, alleges that the Applicant, on or about 8:10 hours on the 31 day of July, 2002, at Brinston, in the province of Ontario, committed a violation, namely: “did unload an animal to wit: three heifers, in a way likely to cause suffering”, contrary to subsection 139(2) of the Health of Animals Regulations which states:
139(2). No person shall load or unload, or cause to be loaded or unloaded, an animal in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to it.
The undisputed evidence is that the Applicant used an electric prod on the faces of heifers while being unloaded at a slaughter facility.
The Applicant was unaware that an electric prod should not be used in this manner.
This, or the exercise of due diligence, does not provide a defence to the violation by reason of subsection 18(1) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Monetary Penalties Act which states as follows:
18.(1) A person named in a notice of violation does not have a defence by reason that the person
(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or
(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person.
The Respondent adduced evidence set out in Tabs 2, 3 and 4 of its report to prove that such a practice could likely cause injury or undue suffering to the animals.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied the Respondent has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicant committed the violation and has properly been issued a warning.
.../3
Dated at Ottawa this 20th day of July, 2004.
___________________________________
Thomas S. Barton, Q.C., Chairman