RTA# 60181
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE
MONETARY PENALTIES ACT
DECISION
In the matter of an application for a review of the facts of a violation of provision 139(2) of the Health of Animals Regulations, alleged by the Respondent, and requested by the Applicant pursuant to provision 9(2)(c) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
Clermont Michaud, 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 and is liable for payment of the penalty in the amount of $2,000.00 to the Respondent within 30 days after the day on which this decision is served.
.../2
REASONS
The Applicant did not request an oral hearing.
The Notice of Violation dated May 26th, 2005, alleges that the Applicant, on the 18th day of March, 2005, at Vallée-Jonction, in the Province of Quebec, committed a violation, namely: “A débarqué un animal d’une façon suceptible de le blesser ou de la faire souffrir undûment.”, contrary to provision 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.
“Undue” has been defined by the Federal Court of Appeal in Procureur général du Canada c. Porcherie des Cèdres Inc., [2005] F.C.A. 59, to mean “unjustified” or “unwarranted”.
On March 18, 2005, the Applicant transported a shipment of 209 hogs a distance of about 30 kilometers to the Olymel Inc. slaughterhouse at Vallée-Jonction.
Dr. Elizabeth St-Pierre, a veterinarian with the Respondent, testified in her
non-compliance report that she was at the slaughterhouse when the load arrived at about 5:30 p.m. and noticed that one of the hogs was lying down inside the truck. The hog was very thin with its vertebral bones and ribs visible, had a slightly swollen abdomen, was breathing rapidly and laboriously, and could not stand to have its hind limbs touch the ground. The hog weighed approximately 35 kilograms. It was subsequently condemned for human consumption as being emaciated.
Dr. St-Pierre further testified that she requested the animal be stunned on the truck to avoid causing it any more suffering. She testified that the Applicant ignored this request and removed the hog, by force, by pulling the animal by its ears for a distance of several meters. She further testified that she saw that the hog’s hind limbs had been crushed by its weight while it was being moved on the ground. Her further evidence was that the
animal laid down on its side and began breathing very rapidly, an indication of intense suffering.
.../3
In his written submission dated June 30th, 2005, the Applicant indicated that the animal was lame when it was being loaded and was therefore placed in isolation in the truck.
At the time of unloading, it was helped to get up and walk so it did not need to support its weight by itself (implying a problem with the hog). Subsequently, in its written submission dated July 14, 2005, he changed his evidence to state the animal was only limping slightly during loading, and on unloading was helped to stand up to see if it could move around on its own and that it had gotten as far as the door (implying that it did so without assistance).
These inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence detract from its credence.
The Tribunal finds the Respondent’s evidence to be more compelling. Even if the Applicant’s evidence was fully accepted, because of the condition of the animal and its inability to rise and remain standing on its own in the truck, the Applicant by his actions in attempting to unload the non-ambulatory animal, caused it unwarranted and unjustified suffering.
The Respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicant committed the violation.
Dated at Ottawa this 19th day of August, 2005.
__________________________________Thomas S. Barton, Q.C., Chairman