EDITOR’S NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Federal Courts Reports.
Agriculture
Judicial review of Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal decision (2022 CART 21) determining applicant’s request for review of violation inadmissible because not made in time and manner prescribed — Applicant served with notice of violation under Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, S.C. 1995, c. 40 alleging it had transported chickens in truck with defective tarps, inadequate ventilation — Applicant submitting Tribunal wrong to conclude request for review not properly made — Applicant sent request for review to Tribunal by email on May 9, 2022, followed up by copy sent by registered mail on May 18, 2022 — That copy received on May 24, 2022 — Tribunal determined that request for review not made in time prescribed because copy was sent late (it was required to be sent by May 12, 2022) — Prescribed time and manner to request review set out in Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations, SOR/2000-187, ss. 11(2), 14(1),(3) — Whether Tribunal reasonably found that request for review was inadmissible because follow-up copy of request was out of time — Question here whether sending copy necessary to have valid request for review — Tribunal relying on Clare v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 265, Hershkovitz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 38 — However, neither of these decisions dealing with requirement to send follow-up copy of request for review — Relevant statutory language for sending original request (Regulations, s. 14(1)) materially different from language for sending follow-up copy (Regulations, s. 14(3)) — Regulations, s. 14(3) not explicitly linking requirement to send copy with manner to make valid request for review — Although its text states that sending copy is mandatory, does not state that copy is requirement to make request — Further difficulty with Tribunal’s interpretation of s. 14(3) is that it results in an inconsistency as to deadline for making request — These considerations concerning text, context and purpose of s. 14(3) may impact decision at issue — Had they been considered by Tribunal, it may have reached a different result — Matter referred back to Tribunal for reconsideration — Application allowed.
Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-241-22, 2023 FCA 152, Woods J.A., reasons for judgment dated June 29, 2023, 10 pp.)