Date: 20011224
Docket: T-2242-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1432
BETWEEN:
UNION DES PRODUCTEURS AGRICOLES, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Professional Syndicates Act (R.S.Q., c. S-40), having its head office at 555 boul. Roland-Therrien, Longueuil, province de Quebec
and
FÉDÉRATION DES PRODUCTEURS DE PORCS DU QUÉBEC, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Professional Syndicates Act (R.S.Q., c. S-40), having its head office at 555 boul. Roland-Therrien, Longueuil, province of Quebec
and
FÉDÉRATION DES PRODUCTEURS DE BOVINS DU QUÉBEC, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Professional Syndicates Act (R.S.Q., c. S-40), having its head office at 555 boul. Roland-Therrien, Longueuil, province of Quebec
and
FÉDÉRATION DES PRODUCTEURS DE VOLAILLES DU QUÉBEC, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Professional Syndicates Act (R.S.Q., c. S-40), having its head office at 555 boul. Roland-Therrien, Longueuil, province of Quebec
and
FÉDÉRATION DES PRODUCTEURS D'AGNEAUX ET DE MOUTONS DU QUÉBEC, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Professional Syndicates Act (R.S.Q., c. S-40), having its head office at 555 boul. Roland-Therrien, Longueuil, province of Quebec
and
ATRAHAN TRANSFORMATION INC., body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Companies Act (Part 1A), having its head office at 860 chemin des Acadiens, Yamachiche, province of Quebec
and
OLYMEL S.E.C., limited partnership, having its head office at 2200 avenue Léon-Pratte, bureau 400, St-Hyacinthe, province of Quebec
and
LES SALAISONS BROCHU INC., body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the Companies Act (Part 1A), having its head office at 183 route Kennedy, St-Henri, province of Quebec
and
ABATTOIR COLBEX INC., body corporate legally incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, having its head office at 8600 8E Avenue, Montréal, province of Quebec
and
EXCELDOR, poultry cooperative, body corporate legally incorporated pursuant to the QuebecCooperatives Act, having its head office at 460 rue Principale, St-Anselme, province of Quebec
Plaintiffs
AND:
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, body corporate at public law duly incorporated under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act (S.C. 1997, c. 6), having its head office at 59 Camelot Drive, Ottawa, province of Ontario
and
RONALD DOERING, in his capacity as President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, having his office at 59 Camelot Drive, Ottawa, province of Ontario
and
DR. JEAN-PIERRE ROBERT, in his capacity as Regional Director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, having his head office at 2001 rue Université, pièce 746-I, Montréal, province of Quebec
and
PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA, body corporate legally incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act, Part II, having an office at 1800 McGill College, Suite 2808, Montréal, Quebec
and
STEVEN HINDEL, in his capacity as president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, having an office at 1800 McGill College, Suite 2808, Montréal, Quebec
and
MICHÈLE DEMERS, in her capacity as vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, having an office at 1800 McGill College, Suite 2808, Montréal, Quebec
and
ALL VETERINARIANS EMPLOYED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, WHO DID NOT REPORT TO WORK ON DECEMBER 17, 2001, NAMELY:
Dr. Alain Lajoie
Dr. Claude Goyer
Dr. Charles Paquin
Dr. Pierre Viviers
Dr. Pierre Richer
Dr. Brent Hooker
Dr. Josée Trépanier
Dr. Benoit Paquette
Dr. Doug Scott
Dr. André Vallières
Dr. Marie-Andrée Frédette
Dr. Luc Lachapelle
Dr. Jean Bessette
Dr. Richard Lemay
Dr. France Provost
Dr. Joanne Riendeau
Dr. Pierre Beaumont
Dr. Jean Guertin
Dr. Françoise Gagnon
Dr. Denis Bouvier
Dr. Christiane Allard
Dr. Daniel Perron
Dr. Marie-Claude Simard
Dr. Yves Robinson
Dr. Simon P. Carrier
Dr. Julie Parée
Dr. Claude Pigeon
Dr. Michel Morier
Dr. François Lagacé
Dr. Lucie Frenette
Dr. France Gaudry
Dr. Carl Gagnon
Dr. Katie Bernard
Dr. Jean-Luc Dubois
Dr. Jean-Louis Martel
Dr. Hélène Gagnon
Dr. Richard Bousquet
Dr. Karine Nadeau
Dr. Richard Badeau
Dr. Dany Beauregard
Dr. Norman Bélair
Dr. Chantal Belleau
Dr. Rachid Berkane
Dr. Real Bilodeau
Dr. Clement Bisaillon
Dr. Michel Blanchette
Dr. Guy Boulard
Dr. Madgid Boussouira
Dr. Jean-Guy Brousseau
Dr. Stefano Cagna
Dr. Ginette Caissie
Dr. Dominique Cécyre
Dr. Lyne Chartré
Dr. Daniel Colas
Dr. Patrice Cossette
Dr. Lucie Côté
Dr. Valerie Coupal
Dr. Lyn Couture
Dr. Patricio Diaz
Dr. Bachir Djillali
Dr. Gaston Duchemin
Dr. Jeanne Dufour
Dr. Paquerette Dufour
Dr. Suzanne Duquette
Dr. Lorraine Fiset
Dr. Brigitte Flibotte
Dr. Louis Fortin
Dr. François Gareau
Dr. Jocelyne Gauthier
Dr. Mona Gauthier
Dr. André Gauthier
Dr. Michèle Gauvin
Dr. Réjean Germain
Dr. Éric-Rémi Girard
Dr. Bruno Godin
Dr. Marcel Gourde
Dr. Nicole Grégoire
Dr. Jacques Guy
Dr. Jean-Marc Jacob
Dr. Rémi Jacques
Dr. André Lamadeleine
Dr. Yves Lamothe
Dr. Sonja Laurendeau
Dr. Ghislain Leblanc
Dr. Michel Léonard
Dr. Renée Létourneau
Dr. Nicole Loranger
Dr. Anna Mackay
Dr. Johanne Marcotte
Dr. Pierre Marcoux
Dr. Guy Marcoux
Dr. Michel Marcoux
Dr. Rachel Martel
Dr. Sarmiza Mircescu
Dr. André Mireault
Dr. André Morin
Dr. Sylvie Normand
Dr. Peter O'Donnell
Dr. Pierre Parrot
Dr. Gilles Patenaude
Dr. Évelyne Perras
Dr. Karine Perreault
Dr. Corine Petitclerc
Dr. Robert Philippon
Dr. Sonia Poisson
Dr. Patrick Poulin
Dr. Martin Rodrigue
Dr. Pierre Rousselle
Dr. François Saulnier
Dr. Petre Simion
Dr. Gilles St-Denis
Dr. France Sylvestre
Dr. André Trempe
Dr. Claude Trépanier
Dr. Gérald Turgeon
Dr. Jacques Vezina
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.
[1] On December 17, 2001, nearly all the 116 veterinarians in Quebec employed by the Canadian Inspection Agency ("CFIA") did not report to work, alleging that they were ill.
[2] The next day they all returned to the Quebec abattoir to which they were assigned, and since that time have carried out inspections, slaughter approvals and inspections of the blood taken from an animal and carcass of such an animal, pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act and its 1990 implementing Regulations.
[3] The Union des producteurs agricoles ("UPA"), certain federations of producers (pigs, cattle, poultry, lambs and sheep) and five abattoirs in Quebec subject to the federal inspection system, on a motion filed pursuant to s. 374 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules"), on an urgent basis, are asking the Court to order the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada ("the Institute"), its president Steven Hindel, its vice-president Michèle Demers and all inspectors employed by the CFIA to cease and desist from causing, encouraging or approving pressure tactics having the effect of preventing or interfering with slaughter inspections and to order the veterinary inspectors named to proceed with slaughter inspections and approvals and inspections of blood taken from an animal or carcass of an animal within the deadlines and in accordance with the Act and Regulations and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.
[4] The plaintiffs fear that Quebec veterinarians may have another work stoppage. If such a work stoppage lasting a day or more occurs, the plaintiffs argue that the experience of December 17, 2001 clearly indicates that several types of irreparable harm will result for producers and their animals, for abattoirs which will lose domestic and export markets and for consumers who will be deprived of food products during this holiday period.
[5] The bargaining agent for CFIA and veterinarians in Quebec is the Institute. For 15 months the CFIA and the Institute have been bargaining for the renewal of the collective agreement.
[6] The Institute recognized that some frustration and discontent exists amongst its members regarding the slow pace of the negotiations and, apparently, the CFIA's aggressive attitude at the table.
[7] According to the Institute, it is agitating for the CFIA to show some intention of resolving the dispute and returning to the bargaining table with a fair and reasonable offer which the bargaining team could pass on to members, before veterinarians in other regions of the country join their colleagues on the picket line.
[8] In a press release issued by the Institute on December 17, 2001, the Institute wrote:
Among the immediate consequences of the strike are the unavailability of veterinarians to be present at abattoirs to conduct inspections, sign export certificates and work in foreign animal disease prevention (such as foot and mouth and mad cow diseases) . . .
ANALYSIS
[9] The Supreme Court's judgment in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, sets out the requirements which a party requesting an interlocutory injunction must establish for it to be granted. These tests are well known. The plaintiff must satisfy the Court (1) that there is a serious question to be tried; (2) whether the party seeking the interlocutory injunction would suffer irreparable harm if it were not granted; and (3) the balance of convenience and the public interest.
(1) Serious question
[10] In my view, the plaintiffs have established the existence of a serious question: this is based on a thorough review of the merits as required by the first exception in RJR-MacDonald, supra (Woods exception), since we can reasonably conclude that the order issued would in fact amount to the final settlement of the action.
[11] A quick review of certain provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act indicates to the Court's satisfaction that the plaintiffs have established prima facie that the work stoppage of December 17, 2001 was an unlawful strike. (See the definition of "strike" and s. 102(2), and the designation procedure.)
[12] Further, there seems to be no doubt that the requirements of the Meat Inspection Act and the Inspection Regulations will mean that if veterinarians employed by the CFIA do not carry out their inspections and the CFIA does not provide for these as required by the Act, the plaintiffs will be unable to market their pigs, cattle, poultry, lambs or sheep for human consumption. The CFIA is responsible under s. 11 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act for controlling and supervising the implementation of the Meat Inspection Act and so for ensuring that there are inspections and checks in accordance with s. 13 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, which authorizes the CFIA to appoint veterinary inspectors to implement and control the Acts.
[13] The connection between a prima facie illegal work stoppage by veterinarians with the duty to have veterinarians available in abattoirs at all times and the direct interest of producers to see that the Act is observed in my opinion meets the requirement of a serious question underlying the action to be brought by the plaintiffs.
[14] Counsel for the Institute argued that there was no solid and credible evidence that there would be another work stoppage by veterinarians: in his submission, the plaintiffs' fear was speculative and for this reason I should dismiss the motion for an injunction.
[15] I cannot concur in Mr. Brown's arguments.
[16] Counsel for the CFIA, Mr. Piché, filed an e-mail at the hearing, dated December 19, 2001, which read:
[TRANSLATION]
CFIA veterinarians have suffered the effects of an as yet unidentified virus which prevented them from reporting to work on Monday. Recovery was rapid (all were back on Tuesday) but a relapse cannot be ruled out and the viruses know no borders.
[17] In my opinion, this e-mail is proof of a reasonable probability that another work stoppage will occur among veterinarians employed by the CFIA in Quebec.
[18] Further, in support of their motion the plaintiffs filed several affidavits by the UPA, federations and abattoirs in Quebec.
[19] Several of those affidavits (for example those of Laurent Brochu of Salaison Brochu Inc., Jean-Guy Dubé, director general of Abattoir Colbex, Paul Beauchamp, vice-president, corporate affairs and environmental management of Olymel and Eric Cadoret, vice-president, operations, of Exceldor) state that according to the information provided to them the CFIA veterinary inspectors intend to use pressure tactics as long as the federal government does not give them satisfaction. They mentioned that work stoppages are planned in other provinces in the next few days and that there is every indication that the situation could recur again in Quebec in the next few days, right in the middle of the holiday period. Further, Mr. Dubé stated that his information that veterinarians intended to keep up their pressure tactics was supplied to him by certain CFIA inspectors.
[20] This evidence is such as to persuade the Court that there is a probable risk of a new work stoppage by veterinarians if a preventive order is not made by the Court.
(2) Irreparable harm
[21] According to Sopinka and Cory JJ. in RJR-MacDonald Inc., supra, the word "irreparable" deals with the nature of the harm suffered rather than its extent. It is harm which cannot be quantified in monetary terms or harm which cannot in general be remedied because one party cannot be compensated by the other. The affidavits filed by the federations deal with the question of irreparable harm. Those from Denis Dallaire of the Fédération des producteurs du porcs du Québec, Serge Deschamps of the Fédération des producteurs de volailles du Québec, Jean-François Samray of the Fédération des producteurs d'agneaux et de moutons du Québec and Gaétan Bélanger of the Fédération des producteurs de bovins contain several examples of irreparable harm:
(1) cruelty to animals, since while waiting they were subject to a fast, to unusual pen conditions and suffered weight loss and chilblains resulting in condemnation of the meat;
(2) certain animals suffered stress and some died;
(3) complete paralysis of the system for marketing pork, poultry, cattle, lambs and sheep;
(4) loss of supplies or loss of markets, in particular export markets.
[22] The affidavits filed by the representatives of the abattoirs spoke of a loss of customers and market share, losses which could not be recovered.
[23] Some of the affidavits filed identified irreparable harm for the Canadian consumer through lack of supplies.
[24] Counsel for the CFIA spoke at length of irreparable harm to the inspection system, to maintaining the latter's reputation and to public health if certain leaks occurred.
[25] With this evidence, the plaintiffs met the second test for the injunction sought to be granted.
(3) Balance of convenience and public interest
[26] In RJR-MacDonald, supra, Sopinka and Cory JJ. wrote that under the second test "an assessment must be made as to which of the parties would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the remedy pending a decision on the merits". They consider that the public interest is a particular point to be considered in weighing the balance of convenience and should be given the importance that it deserves.
[27] I have no doubt that the balance of convenience completely favours the plaintiffs. In my opinion, it is they who will suffer the greatest harm.
[28] The evidence is contained in the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of their application and was discussed under the second test, namely that of irreparable harm.
[29] The defendants, and in particular the Quebec veterinarians, will suffer no harm if the order sought is granted because it will simply require them to observe the law and continue their work accordingly.
[30] Counsel for the Institute argued that I should adjourn the motion for the provisional order because his client had not had an opportunity really to review the file and provide relevant evidence. He indicated that if in the meantime there was another work stoppage by veterinarians, the plaintiffs could ask the Court for an ex parte order and in the circumstances the Institute would agree to the order being heard ex parte.
[31] In my opinion, this suggestion by Mr. Brown does not shift the balance of convenience in favour of the defendants. The harm to the plaintiffs considerably exceeds the harm suffered by the defendant veterinarians in this regard. Moreover, there is no doubt that the public interest in preserving and observing the laws and regulations is in the plaintiffs' favour.
DISPOSITION
[32] For all these reasons, the application for a provisional order sought is granted, except for one. This order will require the CFIA to temporarily designate other veterinary inspectors if the existing inspectors fail to act in accordance with the order made.
[33] The affidavit by Diane Piette, CFIA veterinarian, suggests that the Agency is unable to make such a temporary designation since it does not have enough private, Francophone veterinarians.
[34] Further, I have no evidence that the veterinary inspectors will not comply with the order made, and it would be wrong of me to presume this.
|
|
François Lemieux
J U D G E
|
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 24, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-2242-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: UNION DES PRODUCTEURS AGRICOLES ET AL.
v.
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 20, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER: LEMIEUX J.
DATE OF REASONS: DECEMBER 24, 2001
APPEARANCES:
CLAUDE SAVOIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
RAYMOND PICHÉ FOR THE DEFENDANTS
ANNIE LEMAIRE (CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION
MARIE-CLAUDE COUTURE AGENCY)
DOUGAL BROWN FOR THE DEFENDANTS
(PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTE OF CANADA)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
TREMBLAY, BROSSEAU, FLEURY, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
SAVOIE
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION
OF CANADA AGENCY)
NELLIGAN, O'BRIEN, PAYNE FOR THE DEFENDANTS
OTTAWA, ONTARIO (PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA)
Email this Content