Canada: Agricultural Law NetLetter - Monday, December 21, 2015 - Issue 338


  • The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has reviewed and upheld a decision of the Ontario Animal Care Review Board concerning the removal of 25 horses from an Ontario farm. The Review Board concluded that the removal of the horses by the Ontario SPCA complied with the provisions of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Court concluded that chronic situations are sufficient to establish distress under the Act and ordered that a farmer pay the SPCA's costs of $62,554.00 in relation to caring for most of the herd while in detention. The cost for caring for two horses was rejected because the SPCA had, through oversight, failed to mention these horses in the Removal Order issued pursuant to the Act. (Hurley v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, CALN/2015-028, [2015] O.J. No. 6580, Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
  • A Justice of the Federal Court of Canada has directed a rehearing in the case of an Iranian entrepreneur who had business assets and land in Iran valued in excess of $2 million, and who applied for permanent residence in Canada in the self-employed category intending to purchase a farm in Saskatchewan. The Court concluded that the officer's decision as unintelligible and hence unreasonable, and that the Review Officer had denied the Applicant procedural fairness by not affording him the opportunity to address concerns about his intent and ability to become self-employed as a farmer in Canada. (Mohitian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), CALN/2015-029, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1472, Federal Court of Canada)


Hurley v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; CALN/2015-028, Full text: [2015] O.J. No. 6580; 2015 ONSC 7784, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A.D. Kurke J., December 11, 2015.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -- What Constitutes Distress -- Procedural Requirements to Recover Costs.

Rebecca Hurley ("Hurley") appealed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice from a May 15, 2015 decision of the Animal Care Review Board (the "Review Board") pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36 (the "Act").

The Review Board upheld the removal of 25 horses and a goat from Hurley's farm on March 5, 2015 by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the "SPCA") and directed that two of Hurley's horses should remain with the SPCA until the treating veterinarian deemed them healthy enough to be returned; that the remaining horses and the goat be returned to Hurley subject to conditions related to adequate access to water, minerals and feed and ongoing examination by the veterinarian, and that Hurley pay the SPCA's costs in the amount of $17,389.00.

On June 9, 2015, Hurley appealed the Review Board's decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. She was self-represented at the appeal hearing, which was conducted as a trial de novo over more than a week.

Section 13(1) of the Act gives SPCA inspectors and agents who have "reasonable grounds for believing that an animal is in distress" the authority to order the owner or custodian of the animal to take such action as, in the opinion of the inspector, may be "necessary to relieve the animal of its distress" or to "have the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian".

Section 14(1) gives SPCA inspectors and agents the authority to remove animals in distress where a veterinarian has inspected an animal and has advised the SPCA inspector or agent in writing that the health and wellbeing of the animal necessitates removal:

14(1) An inspector or an agent of the Society may remove an animal from the building or place where it is and take possession thereof on behalf of the Society for the purpose of providing it with food, care or treatment to relieve its distress where,

  1. a veterinarian has examined the animal and has advised the inspector or agent in writing that the health and well-being of the animal necessitates its removal;
  2. the inspector or agent has inspected the animal and has reasonable grounds for believing that the animal is in distress and the owner or custodian of the animal is not present and cannot be found promptly; or
  3. an order respecting the animal has been made under section 13 and the order has not been complied with.

Section 17(6) of the Act allows the Review Board to confirm, revoke or modify orders made by the SPCA.

Section 18(4) allows an appeal to the Court from the decision of a Review Board as a "new hearing", and authorizes the Judge to "rescind, alter or confirm the decision of the [Review Board]..."

Decision: Kurke, J. upheld the Review Board's decision, with some alterations [at para. 168 and 169].

Kurke, J. reviewed the evidence in considerable detail [at para. 12 to 152].

Kurke, J. observed [at para. 6] that "distress" was defined in s. 1(1) of the Act as meaning:

"...the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect."

and held [at para. 159] that the test for distress was not "imminent danger of demise" and that a "chronic situation" was sufficient.

Kurke, J. concluded that the SPCA's claim for costs for care for the animals was not exorbitant and that although the "total seems large, it represents the continuous maintenance and care, and medical treatment that many large animals for nearly 9 months". Kurke, J. directed Hurley to pay costs of $62,554.53 [at para. 168].

Kurke, J. concluded [at para. 166] that the SPCA must "scrupulously adhere" to the provisions of the Act and that the SPCA's failure to name two of the horses in the notice disentitled the SPCA from reimbursement for the costs of maintenance of those two animals.

Kurke, J. confirmed that the animals had been removed in compliance with s. 14 of the Act [at para. 168] and directed the return of all except two of the horses to the applicant. Two horses were to remain under veterinary treatment, until they were well enough to be returned.

Mohitian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); CALN/2015-029, Full text: [2015] F.C.J. No. 1472; 2015 FC 1393, Federal Court of Canada, Boswell J., December 17, 2015.

Immigration -- Applications for Immigration as Self-Employed Farmers -- Procedural Fairness -- Fair Opportunity to Address Business Feasibility Concerns.

A 53 year old citizen of Iran and his wife (the "Applicant") applied to the Federal Court for the judicial review of a decision of an officer of the Canadian Embassy in Ankara, Turkey who had denied an application for permanent residence in Canada as a self-employed person.

The Applicant owned an interest in a citrus orchard and walnut orchard in Iran. He valued those interests in excess of $1 million Cdn and indicated he owned other property worth in excess of $1 million Cdn.

In August of 2007, the Applicant and his wife had visited Canada for a month travelling from Vancouver to Saskatchewan.

The Applicant applied for permanent residence in November of 2007 in the "self-employed category" pursuant to s. 88(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/ 2002-227 (the "Regulations") intending to purchase an existing farm in Saskatchewan.

The application for a permanent resident Visa languished for nearly 7 years. On February 6, 2015 an immigration officer at the Canadian Embassy in Ankara, Turkey requested updated immigration forms.

The Applicant's consultant forwarded a letter with the requested documentation to the Embassy on March 8, 2015.

In a letter dated March 30, 2015, the Embassy officer denied the Applicant's application for permanent residence, because the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient detail about his proposed self-employment in Saskatchewan. In particular, the officer concluded that the Applicant did not provide evidence of any research regarding the cost of farmland and accommodations in Saskatchewan, the cost of supplies, salary and income expectations, or the feasibility of the proposed farm.

The officer also stated that he was not satisfied that the Applicant had met the "test of relevant experience" and did not have sufficient readily available funds to be transferred to Canada which could be used to create an employment opportunity for himself and to maintain himself and his family or to make a significant contribution to Canadian society.

The officer stated that the Applicant did not present a "realistic business plan" or demonstrate "appropriate experience and appropriate skills" to become self-employed as a farmer in Canada.

The officer did refer to the Applicant's visit to Saskatchewan in 2007 and the fact that the Applicant had identified hazel nuts, Siberian crab apples and blueberries as possible crops. The officer observed that the Applicant's immediate readily available funds of $25,000.00 was low.

Decision: Boswell, J. set aside the officer's decision [at para. 26] and directed that the matter be returned for reconsideration by a different officer.

Boswell, J. concluded [at para. 15] that the officer had made unreasonable findings of fact. Although the review officer had stated at one point that he was satisfied the Applicant met the test of relevant experience, he stated at another point that he was not satisfied the Applicant had done so. He concluded "this is unintelligible and, hence, unreasonable" [at para. 16].

Boswell, J. also concluded that the Applicant had been denied procedural fairness by the officer by not affording the Applicant an opportunity to address the officer's concerns about his intent and his ability to become self-employed in Canada.

Boswell, J. observed [at para. 18]:

[18] The Officer found that the Applicant had not presented "a realistic business plan". This finding, however, was made without any input or information from the Applicant other than that which he had submitted with his application in November 2007 and in March 2015 in response to the Embassy's request for updated forms and documents in its letter of February 6, 2015. This February 2015 letter contained a detailed, two page checklist as to what forms and other documentation the Applicant should submit; it also advised that where a requested document was unavailable a written explanation with full details should be provided. This letter did not request or advise that the Applicant should submit a business plan.

Boswell, J. also observed that the review officer did not exercise his discretion to call the Applicant in for an interview [at para. 19]; that there is no requirement under the Act or the Regulations for a formal business plan [at para. 21]; that the Overseas Processing Manual indicated that formal business plans entail unnecessary expense. The Manual also indicates that if officers have concerns about eligibility or admissibility... "the Applicant must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict those concerns" and to "rebut the content of any negative provincial assessment that may influence the final decision". The officer has an obligation to provide a thorough and fair assessment in compliance with the terms and spirit of the legislation and procedural fairness requirements".

Boswell, J. concluded at para. 23 and 24:

[23] I agree with the Applicant that it was not fair in the circumstances of this case for the Officer not to have alerted him as to the concerns about his business plan, particularly considering that he was not required by the Act or Regulations to submit a formal business plan. Although an interview may not have been required, a simple procedural fairness letter informing the Applicant of the Officer's concerns in this regard should have been sent to the Applicant. This is all the more so in view of the lengthy period of time which had transpired in processing the Applicant's application and the relative promptness it was dealt with after the Applicant updated his documentation.

[24] Although not precisely on point, this Court's decision in Yazdanian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999 Can LII 7710 (FC), [1999] FCJ No 411, 170 FTR 129 [Yazdanian], involving an Iranian farmer who sought permanent residence as a member of the entrepreneur class, highlights the principle upon which the Officer in this case erred by not affording the Applicant an opportunity to address the concerns about the Applicant's intent and ability to become self-employed in Canada. In Yazdanian, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamber held as follows:

[18] While I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant has the onus to provide sufficient information to the Visa Officer to support his application, when the Visa Officer has a specific concern that could impact negatively on the application, fairness requires that the Applicant be given an opportunity to respond to her concern. [emphasis in original]

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
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.