Canada: Alberta Judge Won't Strike Out Meat Producer's Third-Party Claim Against CFIA

In this recent summary judgment ruling, Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench in Harrison v. XL Foods Inc. permitted meat processor XL Foods Inc. (the Company) to third-party the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA ) with respect to a class action negligence claim over an E. coli outbreak. Applying the test for summary dismissal, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke decided that it is not "plain and obvious" that CFIA owes no private law duty to members of the plaintiff class (primarily consumers and distributors of the contaminated meat). Thus the CFIA's application to strike the third-party claim was dismissed.

It is important to remember that no legal principles were established by the ruling: whether such a private law duty actually does exist remains an open question. However, even the possibility that it might be recognized should be of considerable interest to the food industry and other heavily regulated industries.


After the representative plaintiff began the class proceeding, the Company (which denied liability) filed a third party claim against CFIA alleging that the federal agency owed a duty of care to individual consumers and commercial purchasers (customers) and that that duty had been breached by the following allegedly negligent acts:

  • Failure to establish adequate operating standards;
  • Failure to properly inspect or test beef products; and
  • Failure to hold or recall beef products.

In reply, counsel for CFIA argued that the agency did not owe a duty of care to the Company's customers, citing the lack of a proximate relationship with them, as well as policy reasons that, in the agency's view, precluded a finding of a duty of care.

Duty of Care

The principal issue was whether CFIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff class. A duty of care is a necessary condition of a finding of negligence. This question is resolved in Canada's common law provinces through the application of the Anns-Cooper  test, which applies where the relationship between the parties has not previously been held to create a duty of care. Where that is the case,  Anns-Cooper requires the court to consider foreseeability of harm, proximity and policy in order to determine whether a "new" duty of care ought to be recognized

The court accordingly began with the threshold question: Has this type of duty of care already been accepted or rejected by the courts? The most nearly analogous case brought to the court's attention was Los Angeles Salad Co. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (L.A. Salad). In that case, CFIA had been found not liable to certain food producers even though it had negligently inspected imported carrots, concluding incorrectly that they were contaminated. That conclusion necessitated the recall and destruction of the carrots, which allegedly caused losses to the affected carrot growers. However, given the clear distinction between potential liability to "upstream" producers versus "'downstream" consumers, Rooke A.C.J. was unable to accept L.A. Salad as settling the duty of care issue at the threshold stage.

We should note that the court also rejected CFIA's more general argument that economic loss is not a recognized legal basis for an injury claim and, in particular, that it had no duty to prevent economic losses to middlemen in the food industry even if it had an obligation to compensate the general public for injury. Rooke A.C.J. remarked that there is no generally recognized prohibition against recovery of economic loss in a tort injury scenario such as would have permitted him to conclude, at this stage, that the plaintiffs could not succeed against the Company, or the Company against CFIA.

Given that the degree of similarity between L.A. Salad and the present case did not meet the high threshold required to strike the application, and given the plausible economic loss argument, the court found that this was a novel case and proceeded to the proximity and policy analyses required by Anns-Cooper.


CFIA argued that it lacked proximity to the plaintiffs, who were downstream users and distributors of the Company's products. Citing the Company's submissions, the court disagreed:

Proximity in such cases is founded on the inspectors' proximity to the processes and products that give rise to the risk, and upon their ability to exercise a significant degree of control over those risks

This analysis suggests that it may prove important, in future disputes of this type, to establish the degree to which government inspectors influence industrial processes and the risks that attend them. It appears to follow from this that, where governments have decided to subject sensitive industries to close and constant inspection, the potential for a finding of proximity (and liability) may rise [4]

Here, CFIA's participation in the Company's plant operations created potential proximity between it and the plaintiffs. Although CFIA argued that it had only a discretionary power to inspect and enforce standards, Rooke A.C.J. found that its actions (as alleged in the Company's submissions, which were accepted as true for the purposes of the application) amounted to a "systematic process" evidencing "full operational integration", rather than merely "periodic or random inspections". While the court rejected the argument that the relationship was literally a partnership or joint enterprise, it was willing to accept as true the Company's argument that the facility was "micromanaged by CFIA down to a handbook ... the Bible.   As the Company's submissions stated, CFIA's inspectors were embedded in the Company's operations. They were involved at various stages of the Company's operations – from inspecting and testing products throughout the production process to approving the shipping of finished products from the plant.


CFIA did not contest the argument that its negligent activity could foreseeably have led to bacterial meat contamination and subsequent injury to the Company's customers.

Policy considerations (emerging from the relationship of the parties)

The final element in the first stage of the Anns-Cooper analysis involves policy issues inherent in the relationship between the parties. While some previous cases may have cited "policy reasons" in rejecting a private duty of care by various government regulators to consumers and others, Rooke A.C.J. was not convinced that the same reasoning applied "when the regulatory oversight of the government body is significantly more involved", as was alleged by the Company. The "unusual degree of control" in this situation distinguished it from cases of more "passive" oversight, in the court's view.

Rooke A.C.J. also observed that CFIA's alleged role of standing in conjunction with the Company as an operator may have been inconsistent with the statutory intention. Furthermore, he rejected CFIA's policy arguments against the finding of a duty of care. Rooke A.C.J. disagreed that the proposed duty of care would create a spectre of unlimited liability and a taxpayer funded insurance scheme unintended by Parliament. Instead, he concluded that the range of injured parties, though potentially large, is in fact finite. In addition, CFIA's alleged negligence has an operational rather than a policy basis, and its statutory duty to protect the public health would align with a private law duty to prevent economic losses of customers affected by a recall order.

Policy considerations (residual)

The second stage of the Anns-Cooper requires the court to turn its attention to policy in another form – "residual policy considerations". Residual policy considerations are more general and not dependent on the particularities of the parties' relationship. Here, the court's analysis took an interesting turn. In the view of Rooke A.C.J., this second stage of Anns-Cooper should not generally be addressed at all on a motion to strike. That is because, at the second stage, the burden of proof is reversed, leaving the onus on the defendant to establish the residual policy reasons. While the reasons are not entirely clear, Rooke A.C.J.'s point appears to be that the court's analysis of a motion to strike is intended to be founded on the plaintiff's statement of the case.

As it happened, however, neither side had addressed this argument. Therefore, for the sake of completeness (and likely with a possible appeal in mind), Rooke A.C.J. considered CFIA's residual policy arguments, which included the prospect of "unlimited liability" and the problem of a conflict between the agency's statutory duty to promote public health and the putative duty of care with respect to the economic interests of downstream purchasers. With respect to these points, the court held (i) that the class was finite and (ii) that in the circumstances of the case the two duties align. On that basis, the court concluded that CFIA had failed to make its case on the residual policy issue, even supposing that it is permitted to make that case in a motion to strike.


In light of the arguments on proximity and the absence of conflicting policy considerations, the court concluded that it was not plain and obvious that the proposed duty of care could not be found. Therefore, the application to strike failed. While there may be more to come on this topic as the proceedings continue – the class action was certified on October 8, 2013 – this judgment will undoubtedly be referred to whenever a court is asked find a private law duty of care in industries such as food processing, in which the relevant regulator has a high level of involvement in the operations of industry participants.

Stay of Third Party Claim

Rooke A.C.J. dismissed the plaintiffs' application for a stay of the third party claim. Class counsel argued that the representative plaintiff had made a considered decision not to involve CFIA in the action and that, if it wanted, the Company could always seek contribution from CFIA later. To have CFIA in the mix from the beginning was unnecessary, according to the representative plaintiff. Ultimately, however, Rooke A.C.J. decided, mainly on efficiency grounds, against a stay. Where the issues in connected claims are the same or similar, it may be prudent to combine the trials as any additional complexity, delay or expense can be addressed at the costs stage.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.