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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions