Date: 20250221

Docket: T-118-24 Citation:2025 FC 350

Ottawa, Ontario, February 21, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne

BETWEEN:

BEDESSEE IMPORTS LTD.

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, Bedessee Imports Ltd., is an importer and exporter of food items to specialty retail stores, consumers, wholesalers, restaurants and industrial clients. It sought to import 1,120 hermetically sealed metal cans, each containing 340 grams of halal corned mutton from France (the “Canned Meat Product”) into Canada in November 2023.

[2] On December 21, 2023, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (the CFIA) issued a decision that the Canned Meat Product is not eligible for import into Canada from France (the Decision). In the Decision, a CFIA Food Processing Specialist Inspector (the Inspector) informed the Applicant that the import of the Canned Meat Product was in contravention of paragraph 167(d) of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, SOR/2018-108 (the SFCR). Pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, SC 2012, c 24 (the SFCA), the Applicant was ordered to remove or destroy the Canned Meat Product by a fixed date or it would be forfeited and disposed of at the Applicant’s expense in accordance with subsection 32(3) of the SFCA.

[3] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision, an award equivalent to the Canned Meat Product storage costs incurred since the Decision and an injunction preventing the CFIA and the Canada Border Services Agency (the CBSA) from removing the Canned Meat Product from Canada or destroying it.

[4] For the reasons that follow, the Applicant’s application is dismissed. The Decision is reasonable and the Applicant has not satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the Decision is unreasonable.

I. PRELIMINARY ISSUE – AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE

[5] The Applicant tendered the affidavit of Rayman Bedessee, affirmed on February 15, 2024, as evidence supporting its application. Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit has 33 exhibits attached to it. Neither Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit nor his exhibits, save for those exhibits also included in the certified tribunal record, were before the Inspector at the time the Decision was made.

[6] The Respondent does not object to Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit being included in the record as it speaks to general background information that might assist the Court in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review. As such, Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit would fall within one of the exceptions to the general rule against this Court receiving evidence in an application for judicial review that was not before the decision-maker at the time of the decision (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 20(a) (Access Copyright).

[7] In considering whether Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit is admissible as general background information, I must take care to ensure that it fits within the narrow confines contemplated by this exception and goes no further. New evidence relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the Inspector is inadmissible, as it invades their role as fact-finder and merits-decider.

[8] After careful review, I find that Mr. Bedessee’s affidavit evidence is admissible pursuant to the exception for general background information save and except for paragraphs 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39 and 43 thereof, as well as exhibits N, Q, R, S, T U, and GG, which are not background information evidence.

[9] The Respondent also filed an affidavit sworn by Dr. Mengi, the National Manager of Meat Import within the Food Import/Export Division of the CFIA. The Applicant did not object to Dr. Mengi’s affidavit being included in the record. Dr. Mengi’s affidavit contains general background information with respect to the requirements for importing meat products into Canada. Dr. Mengi’s affidavit helpfully explains what an Official Meat Inspection Certificate (OMIC) is generally and what the OMIC is in this case: a negotiated agreement between Canada and France certifying that the competent French authority has verified compliance with the conditions contained within in the OMIC and that the meat product to be imported into Canada from France meets Canadian meat product import conditions (the French OMIC).

[10] Dr. Mengi’s affidavit and the exhibits that it introduces fall within the general background information exception noted at para 20(a) of Access Copyright and are properly before the Court.

II. THE FACTS

[11] The Applicant has been involved in the food import-export business since at least 1979. It began importing canned halal corned mutton (a salted red meat product from older sheep contained in a hermetically sealed metal can) and frozen raw mutton into Canada in or about 1980 and has continued to do so since. It has imported halal corned mutton from producers and processors located in Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and the United States of America without any noteworthy importation issues.

[12] In 2023, supply issues with its usual suppliers required the Applicant to seek out another canned halal corned mutton source from which it could import product into Canada. The Applicant located COVI SAS, a supplier in Bressuire, France. On October 20, 2023, the Applicant received an invoice from COVI SAS that reflected that it had ordered and purchased the Canned Meat Product: 560 cartons (24 340 grams cans) of GUYCAN halal corned mutton and 560 cartons (24 340 grams cans) of ALTAYIB halal corned mutton. The invoice reflected that the Canned Meat Product purchased was of French origin and included COVI SAS’s approved exporter number.

[13] The Canned Meat Product was shipped from Le Havre, France and arrived in Canada in November 2023. It was cursorily and visually inspected by the CFIA’s National Import Service Centre (the NISC) on November 18, 2023, and was permitted to move forward to Brampton, Ontario, for inspection by the CFIA.

[14] On December 21, 2023, the Inspector sent the Decision to the Applicant. The Decision itself consists of an email and of a Notice to Remove or Destroy Unlawful Imports with three documents attached: 1) an Import Inspection Report (IIR) bearing number 69007238, 2) the French OMIC bearing number FRA79223000239BR, and 3) the Notice of Detention bearing number EL-6T2F4W1.

[15] The key content of the Decision is set out in the Notice to Remove or Destroy Unlawful Imports and reads as follows:

I wish to advise you that the import of this food product is in contravention of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and in particular section(s) 167 (d). The canned Halal corned mutton is not eligible for importation into Canada from France.

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, you are ordered to remove it from Canada at your expense, or, if removal is not possible, to destroy the said commodity at your expense, by 2024-03-20.

If the food commodity is not removed from Canada or destroyed as required by this Notice, it shall be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be disposed of as the Minister may direct at your expense, in accordance with subsection 32(3) of the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

In addition to receiving this order to remove or destroy unlawful imports, contraventions to the applicable Acts and Regulations indicated in this letter are grounds for enforcement action such as suspension or cancellation of licence, or prosecution.

[16] The French OMIC attached to the Decision was issued by France’s Ministère de l’agriculture et de la souveraineté alimentaire, and was signed by an Official Veterinarian in Niort, France on September 11, 2023. By signing the French OMIC, the Official Veterinarian certified that the meat products described therein met specific sanitary and animal health conditions, were prepared in certified establishments and complied with additional species-specific certifications.

A) Official Meat Inspection Certificates

[17] The issues central to this proceeding require some consideration of the general purpose and nature of an OMIC and the particularities of the French OMIC that must be presented when importing meat products to Canada from France.

[18] An OMIC constitutes an agreement between Canada and a foreign state with respect to the importation of meat products into Canada. OMICs arise from the process described at section 170 of the SCFR, by which a foreign state may request that Canada recognize its inspection system for specific meat or shellfish products and, as a result, allow the products to be imported into Canada from that state. The CFIA will request and evaluate information from the foreign state relating to their animal health and food safety regulations, government oversight, inspection procedures, animal welfare, chemical and microbiological controls, animal disease status and controls, and will compare these measures to their Canadian equivalents.

[19] As part of its evaluation process, the CFIA also performs onsite audits in the foreign state to verify that the meat inspection system for which the foreign authority has requested Canada’s recognition provides at least the same level of protection as the Canadian system. The CFIA assesses the level of risk of importing a meat product, both with respect to food safety and animal disease risks.

[20] After the CFIA has conducted these initial evaluations and recognizes the foreign meat system for a species and its meat products as equivalent to Canada’s systems, the CFIA and foreign state negotiate import conditions to be included in the OMIC. The conditions set out in the OMIC may include:

a) the animal species (e.g. bovine (beef), swine (pork));

b) the type of meat product (e.g. raw and/or commercially sterile, cooked, canned meat products that are shelf stable);

c) the humane treatment of animals (e.g. manner of slaughter of the animals);

d) for certain animal species, confirmation that the animals come from a geographical region free from a particular disease;

e) required microbiological testing and/or processing steps (e.g. E. coli testing and cooking time/temperature); and,

f) any further requirements applicable to a particular meat product.

[21] Species-specific certification statements are set out in the OMIC for each meat product to be exported to Canada. The OMIC is completed and signed by an official designated by the foreign state before the product leaves that state.

[22] The designated official completing the OMIC certifies that the meat products described therein are suitable in every way for human consumption and are compliant with the food safety requirements of the foreign state that are at least equal to those applicable in Canada.

[23] Subsection 13(2) and paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR operate together to require that, before or at the time of import, an importer must provide such information to a CFIA inspector via “an official document issued by the foreign state… that states that the meat product meets the requirements that are set out in the Act and these Regulations.” The verification of the information and documents such as an OMIC by the CFIA is a therefore a critical step in Canada’s meat importation process. It is only after the CFIA has reviewed and found the documentation submitted by the importer to be satisfactory that the NISC is able to inform the CBSA of the admissibility of a given meat shipment under the SFCA and the SFCR. The CBSA is thereafter responsible for the release of the meat product pursuant to the Customs Act, RSC 1985, c 1 for further inspection by the CFIA.

B) The French Official Meat Inspection Certificate

[24] The “official document” referred to in paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR in connection with meat imports from France is the French OMIC, the revised terms of which were negotiated in 2022 and came into force on or about December 8, 2022.

[25] The French OMIC attached to the Decision outlines the requirements for meat products to be exported from France to Canada. It sets out information relating to the description of the meat product, the French exporter and its certificate number, the consignee, the meat product’s country of origin, shipping information, and information regarding the slaughterhouse, cutting plant, processing plant and exporting establishment as well as sanitary information. With respect to sheep and goat meat products, the French OMIC sets out additional certifications under Attestation #6 which must be signed by the Official Veterinarian in France prior to the export of such products. Statements that are not applicable to the meat product being exported or address exports of other meats are not signed but rather struck out by the Official Veterinarian.

[26] Attestation #6 was completed and signed by the Official Veterinarian in the French OMIC. Attestation #6 reads that additional certifications contained therein explicitly apply to “[…] all sheep or goat meat and meat products other than shelf stable, commercially sterile sheep or goat meat products packaged in hermetically sealed containers (cans and/or retortable pouches) and shelf stable dried soup-mix products, bouillon cubes and meat extract”. (the emphasis is mine)

[27] I note that the Applicant has no role in the preparation of the French OMIC, its content or any errors committed in export in connection with the French OMIC because it is issued and completed by French authorities. The French OMIC is not a publicly available document.

III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

[28] The Applicant raises the following issues in its Notice of Application and argument:

a) Is the Decision reasonable?

b) Did the Inspector fetter their discretion when they issued the Notice to remove?

c) Was the duty of procedural fairness satisfied in the circumstances?

[29] The only issue seriously argued at the hearing of this proceeding was whether the Decision is reasonable.

A) The Standard of Review

[30] The parties agree that the standard of review that applies to the Decision is the reasonableness standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (Vavilov). I agree.

[31] In Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67, issued at the same time as the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov, the Court explained what is required for a reasonable decision, and what is required of a court reviewing a decision on the reasonableness standard:

[31] A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov, at para. 85). Accordingly, when conducting reasonableness review “[a] reviewing court must begin its inquiry into the reasonableness of a decision by examining the reasons provided with ‘respectful attention’ and seeking to understand the reasoning process followed by the decision maker to arrive at [the] conclusion” (Vavilov, at para. 84, quoting Dunsmuir, at para. 48). The reasons should be read holistically and contextually in order to understand “the basis on which a decision was made” (Vavilov, at para. 97, citing Newfoundland Nurses).

[32] A reviewing court should consider whether the decision as a whole is reasonable: “what is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review” (Vavilov, at para. 90). The reviewing court must ask “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” (Vavilov, at para. 99, citing Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74, and Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 13).

[33] Under reasonableness review, “[t]he burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable” (Vavilov, at para. 100). The challenging party must satisfy the court “that any shortcomings or flaws relied on ... are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov, at para. 100).

[32] In Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us that a reviewing court must be satisfied the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up”:

[104] Similarly, the internal rationality of a decision may be called into question if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise. This is not an invitation to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards of academic logicians. However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”.

[105] In addition to the need for internally coherent reasoning, a decision, to be reasonable, must be justified in relation to the constellation of law and facts that are relevant to the decision: Dunsmuir, at para. 47; Catalyst, at para. 13; Nor-Man Regional Health Authority, at para. 6. Elements of the legal and factual contexts of a decision operate as constraints on the decision maker in the exercise of its delegated powers.

[106] It is unnecessary to catalogue all of the legal or factual considerations that could constrain an administrative decision maker in a particular case. However, in the sections that follow, we discuss a number of elements that will generally be relevant in evaluating whether a given decision is reasonable, namely: the governing statutory scheme; other relevant statutory or common law; the principles of statutory interpretation; the evidence before the decision maker and facts of which the decision maker may take notice; the submissions of the parties; the past practices and decisions of the administrative body; and the potential impact of the decision on the individual to whom it applies. These elements are not a checklist for conducting reasonableness review, and they may vary in significance depending on the context. They are offered merely to highlight some elements of the surrounding context that can cause a reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached.

[33] The Supreme Court of Canada also reminds us in Vavilov, at para 86, that “it is not enough for the outcome of a decision to be justifiable. Where reasons for a decision are required, the decision must also be justified, by way of those reasons, by the decision-maker to those to whom the decision applies.”

[34] A reviewing Court must decide whether the decision under review is reasonable in light of the record that was before the administrative decision-maker (Vavilov, at para 126):

[126] That being said, a reasonable decision is one that is justified in light of the facts: Dunsmuir, para. 47. The decision maker must take the evidentiary record and the general factual matrix that bears on its decision into account, and its decision must be reasonable in light of them: see Southam, at para. 56. The reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it. In Baker, for example, the decision maker had relied on irrelevant stereotypes and failed to consider relevant evidence, which led to a conclusion that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias: para. 48. Moreover, the decision maker’s approach would also have supported a finding that the decision was unreasonable on the basis that the decision maker showed that his conclusions were not based on the evidence that was actually before him: para. 48.

[35] Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal held in Canadian National Railway Company v Halton (Regional Municipality), 2024 FCA 160 that reviewing courts must seek to understand the challenged decision to determine if it is rational and logical as a whole, and not seize on inconsequential errors or omissions:

[43] CN and the Attorney General of Canada submit, and I agree, that in reviewing the decisions, the Federal Court took an unduly formalistic approach in searching for an enumerated list of six SAEEs [significant adverse environmental effects]: two “direct” (or project-specific) and four cumulative. The Federal Court, satisfied that the Minister’s Decision did not refer to or discuss a “direct” SAEE on human health as it relates to air quality, determined that there was “no reason” to review the decision in detail: FC Reasons at para. 97. This was an error.

[44] Vavilov tells us that decisions being reviewed for reasonableness must be read in light of the record, holistically, and contextually: paras. 96-97. A reviewing court must give the reasons “respectful attention”, seek to understand the challenged decision, and determine if, as a whole, it is rational and logical—not seize on inconsequential errors or omissions: Vavilov at paras. 84-85 and 99-100.

B) The Record and the Decision

[36] The record reflects very clearly what the Inspector considered in coming to the Decision.

[37] The Inspector received the Canned Meat Product from the NISC after its cursory and visual inspection of the shipment. They then consulted the “France” section of the CFIA’s webpage entitled “Eligible countries and meat products for importation into Canada - Canadian Food Inspection Agency”, and more particularly its content pertaining to ovine (sheep and mutton) meat products. That webpage indicated that “raw” ovine meat could be imported into Canada from France.

[38] The Inspector noted that canned ovine meat products were not mentioned in the list of permissible meat imports from France, but observed that the French processing establishment and the Irish slaughter establishment indicated on the French OMIC were both eligible sources of ovine meat products for import into Canada based on the CFIA webpage titled “Foreign countries establishments eligible to export meat products to Canada - Canadian Food Inspection Agency” as it read on or about December 19, 2023.

[39] The Inspector consulted a CFIA colleague for guidance and clarification on the applicable product category for the Canned Meat Product. In particular, they inquired whether the Applicant’s ovine Canned Meat Product was eligible to be imported into Canada.

[40] One CFIA colleague observed that the CFIA webpages reflected that raw ovine and caprine meat could be imported from France, but that there was no mention of canned meat product regardless of the eligibility of the establishments involved in the product’s creation.

[41] The Inspector sought additional assistance from another CFIA colleague on December 20, 2023, and attached a copy of the French OMIC and pictures of the Canned Meat Product to their inquiry. A few hours later, the CFIA colleague responded by writing that:

The canned Halal corned mutton is not eligible for importation into Canada from France. This shipment should be refused.

For further context: Attestation #6 on the negotiated OMIC does not apply to sheep meat in hermetically sealed containers.

Note that while Attestation #7 does include canned sheep meat; this provision applies only to meat that has been imported into France, then used as an ingredient to produce another meat product.

[42] The Decision was issued the next day.

[43] As noted, the three documents attached to Decision were 1) an Import Inspection Report (IIR) bearing number 69007238, 2) the French OMIC, bearing umber FRA79223000239BR, and, 3) the Notice of Detention bearing number EL-6T2F4W1.

[44] The Notice of Detention follows the issuance of the Decision and describes the reason for the seizure of the Canned Meat Product as being that the Inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the Canned Meat Product is a product “by means of or in relation to which” paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR was contravened. The attached French OMIC was as received from the French authorities, and all of the additional certifications contained in the OMIC were crossed out except for the additional certifications that apply to sheep and goat meat products. The Import Inspection Report was stamped “Refused” and a handwritten note by the decision-maker was inscribed next to the stamp:

“WD Dec 21/2023

The shipment is rejected for the meat product is not eligible for importation into Canada from France”.

C) The Legal Constraints upon the Decision-Maker

[45] In reaching the Decision, the Inspector was required to consider sections 10 and 32 of the SFCA and sections 167 and 170 of the SFCR. Those provisions are reproduced in full in Appendix A to this Judgment.

[46] Section 10 of the SCFA prohibits importing a prescribed food commodity unless the importer does so in accordance with the SFCR.

[47] Section 13 of the SCFR requires that an OMIC, as contemplated by paragraph 167(d) of the SCFR, must be provided to the Minister before or at the time of import.

[48] Section 167 of the SCFR applies to the import of edible meat products such as the Canned Meat Product. Paragraph 167(a) of the SFCR provides that an edible meat product may be imported only if the foreign state in which the meat product is manufactured, prepared, stored, packaged or labelled, as the case may be, has, at the time the activity is conducted, an inspection system for meat products that is recognized under Part 7 of the SCFR. Part 7 of the SFCR, and more particularly sections 170 and 171 of the SFCR, sets out the regulatory framework for the negotiation of an OMIC that leads to the possibility for the importation of edible meat products from a foreign state, and any conditions or restrictions that may apply as set out in the OMIC itself.

[49] As noted, paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR provides that an edible meat product may be imported only if the importing licence holder provides an inspector with an “official document” issued by the foreign state, in a form approved by the President, that states that the meat product meets the requirements that are set out in the SFCA and these SFCR.

[50] Finally, pursuant to section 32 of the SFCA, where an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an imported food commodity entered Canada in contravention of a provision of the SFCA or the SFCR, the inspector may, by notice, whether the food commodity is seized or not, order its owner, importer, or the person having possession, care or control of it to remove it from Canada at their expense or, if removal is not possible, to destroy it at their expense.

D) Was the Decision reasonable?

[51] The Decision is straightforward and direct, although brief. Considering the Decision itself and the record, the Inspector’s train of logic was clear and rational (Vavilov, at para 137). The steps followed by the Inspector in making the Decision were as follows:

• a)They identified the food commodity as an edible meat product consisting of sheep (ovine) meat packaged in a hermetically sealed can imported from France, a foreign state;

• b)They determined from the publicly available online information posted by the CFIA with respect to sheep (ovine) meat product imports from France that only raw ovine meat could be imported into Canada from France;

• c)They sought clarification via internal consultations at the CFIA as to whether canned sheep (ovine) meat could be imported in Canada from France;

• d)They considered that edible meat product imports from foreign states could only be imported in accordance with the SCFR and, by extension, in accordance with the import restrictions reflected in the OMIC required to be provided by the Applicant to the Minister before or at the time of importation;

• e)They considered the import restriction language contained in the French OMIC with respect to sheep (ovine) meat products and interpreted the French OMIC’s additional certification requirements in the ordinary meaning of the words used, specifically, that sheep meat products “other than” shelf stable sheep meat products packaged in hermetically sealed can could be imported into Canada from France if properly certified, and that the canned sheep (ovine) meat products could not be imported into Canada at all;

• f)They considered that they had reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant’s importation of canned sheep (ovine) meat product into Canada from France was in contravention of importation restrictions reflected in the French OMIC as contemplated by paragraph 167(d) of the SCFR; and,

• g)They exercised their discretion pursuant to section 32 of the SFCA and issued the Decision.

[52] Considering the Decision, the record, the evidence before the decision-maker at the time of the Decision, and the applicable legal constraints set out in the SFCR and the SFCA holistically, I find that that the Decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness and is reasonable.

E) The Applicant’s Arguments

[53] The Applicant has the burden of establishing that the Decision is unreasonable (Vavilov, at para 100). It has not met its burden.

i) Argument no. 1: Form

[54] The Applicant first argues that the Decision was unreasonable because it does not justify its interpretation of the French OMIC in light of the SCFR. To this end, the Applicant argues that the French OMIC presented with the Canned Meat Product complies with the formal requirements of an OMIC as required by the CFIA. It makes this argument based on the evidence elicited from Dr. Mengi during cross-examination on his affidavit with respect to OMIC ink colours, official stamps, sequential numbers in the certificate number and related topics of form.

[55] The Applicant argues that the import of the Canned Meat Product is in accordance with the CFIA requirements because it was presented with an OMIC that set out required information such as the description of the meat product, shipping marks, the number and kind of pieces, containers, packages, etc., being imported, as well as net weight, foreign establishment numbers and authorized processors and slaughterhouses in France. The presented OMIC also indicates that inapplicable additional certifications are crossed out and contains the requisite signature and a certificate number. The Inspector was unreasonable, the Applicant argues, because they did not explicitly consider that the OMIC met these requirements and was technically complete.

[56] The Applicant suggests that section 13 of the SFCR may be relevant on this point but does not indicate the legislative or regulatory source of any of the CFIA requirements it relies upon, how they have an effect on the Decision, or how they might make the Decision unreasonable.

[57] Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the Inspector was not required to explicitly consider any of the requirements of section 13 of the SFCR because there was no apparent issue with the information provided by the Applicant. Requiring a decision-maker to make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate, leading to its final conclusion is unreasonable (Vavilov, at para 119 and 128). The Applicant has not demonstrated how the Decision in unreasonable on the basis of this argument.

ii) Argument no. 2: Webpage Reconciliation

[58] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the Inspector did not reconcile the various strands of information available to the Applicant and to the Inspector on various allegedly contradictory CFIA webpages regarding the importation of ovine edible meat products from France as identified in the certified tribunal record. The webpages at issue are described in Appendix B to this Judgment. The Applicant argues that these webpages, along with his affidavit evidence, reflect that the Canned Meat Product should be eligible for import into Canada. This argument must be rejected as it is a repetition of the Applicant’s first argument, and fastens onto matters that are ancillary and of very little, if any, relevance to the issue of the import eligibility of the Canned Meat Product.

[59] The Applicant argues, for example, that the CFIA’s Foreign countries establishments eligible to export meat products to Canada webpage, as it read on January 23, 2024, reflected that the Applicant’s exporter, COVI SAS, was authorized to export canned red meat from France to Canada, that sheep meat is “red meat”, and concludes that the canned sheep meat prepared by COVI SAS is therefore authorized for import into Canada, making the Decision unreasonable. This argument ignores the import restriction for canned sheep meat reflected in the French OMIC and the interplay between that restriction and the import eligibility requirements of paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR. Further, the Applicant misstates the content of the webpage, which reflects that COVI SAS is authorized to can red meat, not that sheep meat canned at COVI SAS is authorized for import to Canada.

[60] In any event, the Inspector is not required to make an explicit finding or statement on subordinate matters leading to their conclusion (Vavilov, at para 128). This, in my view, means that the Inspector was not required to explicitly reconcile the information contained in various CFIA webpages that may or may not be useful or current on ancillary matters. Rather, the Inspector was tasked to consider the core issue of whether the Canned Meat Product was eligible for import from France in light of the SFCA, the SFCR and, crucially, the restrictions on import negotiated by Canada with France pursuant to the process outlined in Part 7 of the SFCR as recorded on and reflected by the French OMIC.

iii) Argument no. 3: Past Imports from other Countries and Poultry from France

[61] The Applicant similarly argues that his past importing of canned sheep meat from other countries at different times is relevant and that the ability to import canned cooked poultry products from France demonstrates that the Decision is unreasonable. I cannot agree. The Applicant’s past importation of canned sheep products from exporting countries other than France at a different time is not relevant to determining whether the Canned Meat Product in question were eligible for import from France in November 2023. Similarly, cooked and canned poultry products are food commodities that are different from canned sheep meat products and are regulated differently. The Applicant seeks to make an equivalency argument that is false and must be rejected.

iv) Argument no. 4: No safety testing

[62] The Applicant also argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the CFIA refused to test the Canned Meat Product for safety. This argument has no merit and is rejected. A product that is ineligible for import need not necessarily be tested for safety because it is ineligible for import as a matter of law. Safety testing will not make the Canned Meat Product more eligible for import in light of paragraph 167(d) of the SFCR and sections 10 and 32 of the SCFA.

v) Argument no. 5: No Legislative Support

[63] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because it does not refer to any applicable legislation. This argument is factually incorrect and must be rejected. The Decision plainly refers to the legislation upon which the Decision is based.

vi) Argument no. 6: Additional Certifications Interpretation

[64] The Applicant argues that the additional certifications set out in the OMIC with respect to canned sheep meat products were not required in any event, and therefore cannot properly form the basis of a determination of import ineligibility. This argument sets out the Applicant’s main position: it disagrees with the Inspector’s interpretation of the import restriction language reflected in Attestation #6 of the French OMIC’s additional certifications pertaining to canned sheep meat products in light of the SFCA, the SFCR and the negotiated Canada-France import restrictions. In the Applicant’s interpretation, the absence of any additional certifications noted for canned ovine meat products means that canned ovine meat products may be imported from France without issue.

[65] Given that the interpretation applied by the CFIA decision-maker is reasonable, following the rational and logical chain of analysis noted above, I do not need to consider the interpretation proposed by the Applicant. When there are two reasonable possible interpretations of statutory provisions and of conclusions from the evidence, it is for the administrative decision-maker, not the Court, to choose between them (Saadi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 648 at para 15).

[66] If the Applicant’s proposed interpretation had to be considered, I would consider it results-oriented and unreasonable because it misapprehends the regulatory structure set out in the SFCA and the SFCR for edible meat product imports. Food commodities such as the Canned Meat Product are legislatively ineligible for import into Canada from France unless they are imported in accordance with the SFCA and the SFCR (subsection 10(1) SFCA; subsection 5(1), 13(2), and paragraph 167(d) SFCR). This means that a product is ineligible for import until and unless the SFCA and SFCR make it eligible for import. Regulatory silence does not make the food commodity eligible for import because imports of edible meat products are regulated through an import permission regulatory scheme. The record, the French OMIC, and the publicly available published information by the Government of Canada on its Eligible countries and meat products for importation into Canada webpage, modified April 17, 2023, reflects that in November 2023, Canada recognized France’s approved ovine meat system with respect to raw ovine meat products only. Canned ovine meat products were not approved for import from France despite that canned bovine and swine products were eligible for import.

[67] The Applicant’s proposed interpretation also ignores the specific certification requirements contained in the French OMIC with respect to species specific meat products for export from France. The content of these requirements reflects eligible certifications for eligible imports and provides no certifications for products that are ineligible for import to Canada. The French OMIC reflects specific additional certifications for canned bovine meat products that are different than those applicable to all other bovine meat products, additional certifications for canned pig meat products that are different than those applicable to all other pig meat products, and additional certifications for all fresh ratite meat. The French OMIC includes that certifications applicable for all poultry and all other bird derived meat products apply equally to canned poultry products, provides additional certifications for all rabbit meat products other than canned rabbit meat products, and finally, in Attestation #6, notes additional certifications for all ovine meat products other than canned ovine meat products. The logic inherent in the form’s manner of describing additional certifications, appreciated with the understanding that edible meat products may be imported only with permission and not through regulatory silence, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Applicant’s proposed interpretation of the French OMIC and of the regulatory scheme as a whole must be rejected.

[68] The Applicant has not demonstrated how the Inspector’s interpretation of the French OMIC, as well as their interpretation of the words “other than” as contained in Attestation #6 of the French OMIC pertaining to sheep meat products, is unreasonable in light of the regulatory scheme set out in the SFCA and the SFCR.

vii) Argument no. 7: Fettering Discretion

[69] The Applicant argued in writing that the Inspector fettered their discretion because they exclusively applied policy guidance as if it was binding upon them without regard to the SFCA or SFCR. The Applicant did not pursue this argument at the hearing of the application. There is no support for this argument on the facts of the matter. The argument is rejected because the record does not reflect any fettering of the decision-maker’s discretion in making their Decision pursuant to section 32 of the SCFA (Maple Lodge Farms v Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at 6-7; Gordon v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 643 at para 29; Thamotharem v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2007 FCA 198 at para 62).

viii) Argument no. 8: Procedural Fairness

[70] The Applicant claims that it was denied procedural fairness by the Inspector because it did not know the case that it had to meet. This was not argued at the hearing of the application.

[71] Considering the factors set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at paras 22 to 27, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Taseko Mines Limited v. Canada (Environment), 2019 FCA 320, at para 38, and the overall statutory scheme set out in the SFCA and the SFCR regarding unauthorized imports, I find that the procedural fairness owed to the Applicant by the decision-maker was at the low end of the spectrum (Prince Edward Island Potato Board v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2023 FC 535 at para 126, aff’d 2024 FCA 180; Hilbert Honey Co. Ltd. v. Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2009 FC 818 at paras 62 and 63; Foster Farms LLC v. Canada (International Trade Diversification), 2020 FC 656 at para 58 (Foster Farms).

[72] The Inspector owed the Applicant a duty to provide it with a copy of the Decision and to remain open to the Applicant’s submissions on the suspension or cancellation of the Notice of Detention after the fact. I note that pursuant subsection 32(5) of the SFCR, a CFIA inspector may cancel a notice to remove or destroy an imported food commodity if it is brought into compliance with the SFCR within a fixed period. The nature of the decision at issue and the legislative scheme under which it was made do not contemplate the Applicant’s participation in the import eligibility determination (Foster Farms; R. v Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15 at para 48).

[73] The evidence in the record reflects that the Inspector provided the Applicant with the Decision and provided the Applicant an opportunity to engage with them with respect to the enforcement that followed the Decision, including regarding the exercise of a statutory power to cancel the Decision’s enforcement. The record also shows that the Inspector remained open to the Applicant’s submissions following the Decision, including by responding to their suggestion that the Decision may have been incorrect based on his understanding of the ability to import canned chicken luncheon meat from France.

[74] Nothing in the record suggests that the Inspector precluded the Applicant from bringing the Canned Meat Product into compliance with the SFCR, however, doing so was not possible in the circumstances as the Inspector reasonably determined that the Canned Meat Product was not eligible for import into Canada for the reasons discussed above. I find that the Inspector met the requirements of procedural fairness in this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

[75] Considering the record, the Decision itself and the administrative context in which of the Decision was made, I find that the Decision is justified in both its outcome and its process. The Decision is reasonable and the Applicant has not discharged its burden to show that the Decision was unreasonable or made in a procedurally unfair manner.

[76] The Court notes that the Applicant elicited, on its cross-examination of Dr. Mengi, that the French authorities were contacted by the Canadian authorities after the Decision and inquired into how it came to be that the French authority issued the OMIC with respect to a meat product that was ineligible for export. On March 8, 2024, France’s Ministère de l’agriculture et de la souveraineté alimentaire informed Canada that the Canned Meat Product was certified for export as a result of a « méprise ponctuelle ». It appears that the French authority had not checked whether canned ovine products could be exported to Canada prior to signing the French OMIC and therefore did not notice that the products were ineligible for export. The French OMIC appears to have been signed in error in France.

 

JUDGMENT in T-118-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement communicated to the Court at the hearing, pursuant to Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, the Applicant shall pay the Respondent its costs of this proceeding which are hereby fixed at $ 7,500.00 all-inclusive.

blank	"Benoit M. Duchesne"
blank	Judge

APPENDIX A

The applicable provisions of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, SC 2012, c 24 (SCFA) are as follow:

Sending, conveying, importing or exporting in accordance with regulations 10 (1) It is prohibited for a person to send or convey from one province to another — or to import or export — a prescribed food commodity unless the person does so in accordance with the regulations. Sending, conveying, importing or exporting with licence or registration (2) It is prohibited for a person to send or convey from one province to another — or to import or export — a prescribed food commodity unless the person is authorized to do so by a registration made under paragraph 20(1)(a), by a licence issued under that paragraph or by both such a registration and licence, as provided for in the regulations. Sending, conveying, importing or exporting of commodity that meets requirements of regulations (3) It is prohibited for a person to send or convey from one province to another — or to import or export — a prescribed food commodity unless the food commodity meets the requirements of the regulations.

Expédition, transport, importation ou exportation en conformité avec les règlements 10 (1) Il est interdit à toute personne d’expédier ou de transporter, d’une province à une autre, un produit alimentaire visé par règlement, ou de l’importer ou de l’exporter, sauf si elle le fait en conformité avec les règlements. Expédition, transport, importation ou exportation — enregistrement ou licence (2) Il est interdit à toute personne d’expédier ou de transporter, d’une province à une autre, un produit alimentaire visé par règlement, ou de l’importer ou de l’exporter, sauf si elle est autorisée à le faire par un enregistrement fait en vertu de l’alinéa 20(1)a), par une licence délivrée en vertu de celui-ci ou par les deux, selon ce que prévoient les règlements. Expédition, transport, importation ou exportation de produits qui satisfont aux exigences réglementaires (3) Il est interdit à toute personne d’expédier ou de transporter, d’une province à une autre, un produit alimentaire visé par règlement, ou de l’importer ou de l’exporter, sauf si le produit satisfait aux exigences des règlements.

Removal or destruction of unlawful imports 32 (1) An inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an imported food commodity does not meet the requirements of the regulations or was imported in contravention of a provision of this Act or the regulations may, by notice, whether the food commodity is seized or not, order its owner or importer, or the person having possession, care or control of it, to remove it from Canada at their expense or, if removal is not possible, to destroy it at their expense. Notice (2) The notice must be either delivered personally to the owner or importer of the food commodity, or to the person having possession, care or control of it, or sent by registered mail, to the owner’s, importer’s or person’s address in Canada. Forfeiture (3) If the food commodity is not removed from Canada, or destroyed, within the period specified in the notice — or, if no period was specified, within 90 days after the day on which the notice was delivered or sent, — it is, despite section 30, forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be disposed of, as the Minister may direct, at the expense of the person to whom the notice was delivered or sent. Suspension of application of subsection (3) (4) An inspector may, for a period specified by the inspector, suspend the application of subsection (3) if the inspector is satisfied that (a) the food commodity does not present a risk of injury to human health; (b) the food commodity will not be sold within that period; (c) the measures that should have been taken for the food commodity not to have been imported in contravention of a provision of this Act or the regulations will be taken within that period; and (d) if the food commodity does not meet the requirements of the regulations, it will be brought into compliance with the regulations within that period. Cancellation (5) An inspector may cancel the notice if the inspector is satisfied that (a) the food commodity does not present a risk of injury to human health; (b) the food commodity has not been sold within the period referred to in subsection (6); (c) the measures referred to in paragraph (4)(c) were taken within that period; and (d) if the food commodity did not meet the requirements of the regulations when it was imported, it was brought into compliance with the regulations within that period. Period (6) The period for the purposes of subsection (5) is (a) if the application of subsection (3) was suspended under subsection (4), the period of the suspension; and (b) if the application of subsection (3) was not suspended, the period specified in the notice or, if no period was specified, the period that ends 90 days after the day on which the notice was delivered or sent.

Autres mesures Retrait ou destruction d’importations illégales 32 (1) S’il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’un produit alimentaire importé n’est pas conforme aux exigences des règlements ou qu’il a été importé en contravention de toute disposition de la présente loi ou des règlements, l’inspecteur peut, par avis, qu’il y ait eu ou non saisie du produit, ordonner à son propriétaire, à la personne qui l’a importé ou à celle qui en a la possession, la responsabilité ou la charge de le retirer du Canada à ses frais ou, si le retrait est impossible, de le détruire à ses frais. Avis (2) L’avis est remis en personne au propriétaire ou à la personne en cause ou est envoyé sous pli recommandé à son adresse au Canada. Confiscation (3) Malgré l’article 30, un produit alimentaire qui n’est pas retiré du Canada ou détruit dans le délai fixé dans l’avis ou, à défaut d’indication de délai, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la date où l’avis a été remis ou envoyé est confisqué au profit de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada; il peut dès lors en être disposé, aux frais de la personne à qui l’avis a été remis ou envoyé, conformément aux instructions du ministre. Suspension de l’application du paragraphe (3) (4) Un inspecteur peut suspendre l’application du paragraphe (3) pour la période qu’il précise, s’il est convaincu que : a) le produit alimentaire ne présente pas de risque de préjudice à la santé humaine; b) il ne sera pas vendu pendant cette période; c) les mesures qui auraient dû être prises pour que le produit alimentaire ne soit pas importé en contravention de toute disposition de la présente loi ou des règlements seront prises au cours de la période; d) si le produit alimentaire n’est pas conforme aux exigences des règlements, il sera rendu conforme aux exigences des règlements au cours de la période. Annulation (5) Un inspecteur peut annuler l’avis s’il est convaincu que : a) le produit alimentaire qui y est visé ne présente pas de risque de préjudice à la santé humaine; b) il n’a pas été vendu pendant la période visée au paragraphe (6); c) les mesures visées à l’alinéa (4)c) ont été prises au cours de la période; d) si le produit alimentaire n’était pas conforme aux exigences des règlements au moment où il a été importé, il a été rendu conforme aux exigences des règlements au cours de la période. Période (6) La période en cause est la suivante : a) dans le cas où l’application du paragraphe (3) a été suspendue en vertu du paragraphe (4), la période de la suspension; b) dans le cas contraire, la période correspondant au délai fixé dans l’avis ou, à défaut d’indication de délai, aux quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la date où l’avis a été remis ou envoyé.

The Applicable provisions of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, SOR/2018-108 (SFCR) are as follow:

Import information 13 (1) Any person who imports a food must provide to the Minister, in a form approved by the President, the following information: (a) their name and address and, if they hold a licence to import, the number of that licence; (b) the name and address of the person from whom the food is received; (c) the name of the foreign state of origin; (d) the address of the first destination of the food in Canada; (e) a description of the food, including its common name and quantity; (f) any information relating to the safety of the food that the Minister believes is required in order to respond to a risk of injury to human health; and (g) in the case of live or raw shellfish other than the adductor muscles of scallops or the meat of geoducks, with respect to the establishment at which the shellfish was last manufactured, prepared, stored, packaged or labelled prior to its importation, the establishment’s registration number, or another identification number for the establishment, that is provided by the foreign state. Provision of import information (2) The information referred to in subsection (1), and any documents required by sections 96 and 104 and paragraph 167(d), must be provided before or at the time of the import. Exception (3) Despite subsection (2), in the case of a food other than a meat product, the Minister may authorize the person who imports the food, at their written request, to provide the information after the time of import, at the time specified by the Minister. Meat products (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the foods set out in paragraphs 25(a) and (b) are not considered to be meat products.	Renseignements sur l’importation 13 (1) Toute personne qui importe un aliment est tenue de fournir au ministre, en la forme approuvée par le président, les renseignements suivants : a) ses nom, adresse et, le cas échéant, numéro de licence d’importation; b) les nom et adresse de la personne de laquelle l’aliment est reçu; c) le nom de l’État étranger d’origine; d) l’adresse de la destination initiale de l’aliment au Canada; e) une description de l’aliment, y compris son nom usuel et sa quantité; f) tout renseignement relatif à la sécurité de l’aliment exigé par le ministre si celui-ci l’estime nécessaire pour parer à un risque de préjudice à la santé humaine; g) s’agissant d’un mollusque vivant ou cru, autre que le muscle adducteur du pétoncle ou que la chair de panope, le numéro d’agrément de l’établissement ou tout autre numéro d’identification de l’établissement, fourni par l’État étranger, où la dernière activité a été exercée avant l’importation, parmi celles de fabrication, de conditionnement, d’entreposage, d’emballage ou d’étiquetage. Fourniture des renseignements sur l’importation (2) Les renseignements sur l’importation visés au paragraphe (1) et les documents visés aux articles 96 et 104 et à l’alinéa 167d) sont fournis avant l’importation ou lors de l’importation. Exception (3) Malgré le paragraphe (2), dans le cas d’un aliment autre qu’un produit de viande, le ministre peut autoriser, sur demande écrite, la personne qui importe l’aliment à fournir les renseignements après l’importation, au moment qu’il précise. Produits de viande (4) Pour l’application du paragraphe (3), les aliments visés aux alinéas 25a) et b) ne sont pas considérés comme des produits de viande.
SUBDIVISION L Import and Export Import 167 The holder of a licence to import may import an edible meat product only if (a) the foreign state in which the meat product is manufactured, prepared, stored, packaged or labelled, as the case may be, has, at the time the activity is conducted, an inspection system for meat products that is recognized under Part 7; (b) the foreign state from which the meat product is imported has, at the time of the import, an inspection system for meat products that is recognized under Part 7; (c) the establishment where the food animal from which the meat product is derived was slaughtered, and any establishment where the meat product was manufactured, processed, treated, preserved, handled, tested, graded, coded, stored, packaged or labelled, have, at the time that the activity is conducted and at the time of the import, a system for manufacturing, processing, treating, preserving, handling, testing, grading, coding, slaughtering, storing, packaging or labelling, as the case may be, that is recognized under Part 7; and (d) the licence holder provides an inspector with an official document issued by the foreign state, in a form approved by the President, that states that the meat product meets the requirements that are set out in the Act and these Regulations.	SOUS-SECTION L Importation et exportation Importation 167 Le titulaire d’une licence d’importation peut importer un produit de viande comestible seulement si, à la fois : a) l’État étranger où il est fabriqué, conditionné, entreposé, emballé ou étiqueté, selon le cas, dispose, au moment où l’activité en cause est exercée, d’un système d’inspection des produits de viande qui est reconnu sous le régime de la partie 7; b) l’État étranger d’où il est importé dispose, au moment de l’importation, d’un système d’inspection des produits de viande qui est reconnu sous le régime de la partie 7; c) l’établissement où a été abattu l’animal pour alimentation humaine dont il provient et tout établissement où il a été fabriqué, transformé, traité, conservé, manipulé, examiné, classifié, codé, entreposé, emballé ou étiqueté disposent, au moment où l’activité en cause est exercée et au moment de l’importation, d’un système de fabrication, de transformation, de traitement, de conservation, de manipulation, d’examen, de classification, de codage, d’abattage, d’entreposage, d’emballage ou d’étiquetage, selon le cas, reconnu sous le régime de la partie 7; d) le titulaire de licence fournit à l’inspecteur un document officiel délivré par l’État étranger, en la forme approuvée par le président, selon lequel le produit de viande satisfait aux exigences de la Loi et du présent règlement.
PART 7 Recognition of Foreign Systems Exception — shellfish 169 This Part does not apply in respect of the adductor muscles of scallops and the meat of geoducks. Application for recognition of inspection system 170 (1) A foreign state may make an application to the Minister in writing for the recognition of its inspection system for meat products or live or raw shellfish. Contents of application (2) The application must include the following information: (a) in the case of an inspection system for meat products, (i) an indication of the species of birds or mammals and a description of the meat products to which the system applies, and (ii) the approximate number of establishments where the manufacturing, preparing, storing, packaging or labelling of meat products that are intended to be exported to Canada would be conducted and an indication of the activities that would be conducted in those establishments; (b) in the case of an inspection system for live or raw shellfish, an indication of the species and the growing and harvesting areas to which the system applies; (c) the volume of meat products or live or raw shellfish to which the system applies that is anticipated to be exported to Canada per year; (d) the items set out in paragraph (3)(a) or (b), as the case may be; and (e) the name, title and signature of the authorized representative of the foreign state who makes the application. Recognition by Minister (3) The Minister must recognize the inspection system in respect of which the application is made if the system provides at least the same level of protection as that provided by the provisions of the Act and these Regulations, taking into account the following: (a) in the case of an inspection system for meat products, (i) any applicable legislative framework, controls and procedures, (ii) the organizational structure of the authority that is responsible for the system, (iii) the implementation of the system, (iv) the resources that support the objectives of the system, (v) the humane treatment of the food animals that are intended to be slaughtered, (vi) the chemical residue monitoring and microbiological monitoring of the meat products, (vii) the certification process for the export of the meat products, and (viii) any other relevant information; and (b) in the case of an inspection system for live or raw shellfish, (i) any applicable legislative framework, controls and procedures, (ii) the organizational structure of the authority that is responsible for the system, (iii) the implementation of the system, (iv) the resources that support the objectives of the system, (v) the chemical and microbiological monitoring of the shellfish, including monitoring for biotoxins, (vi) the monitoring of the waters in the growing and harvesting areas to assess their suitability for their intended purpose, and (vii) any other relevant information. Application for recognition of system 171 (1) If a foreign state’s inspection system for meat products is recognized, the foreign state may make an application to the Minister in writing for the recognition of the system of manufacturing, processing, treating, preserving, handling, testing, grading, coding, slaughtering, storing, packaging or labelling that is used in an establishment and that is subject to that inspection system. Contents of application (2) The application must include the following information: (a) the name of the person who conducts any relevant activities and the establishment’s address; (b) the establishment’s registration number, or another identification number for the establishment, that is provided by the foreign state; (c) a statement that identifies the system in respect of which the application is made; (d) a declaration by the authorized representative of the foreign state who makes the application that states that the system in respect of which the application is made is subject to the foreign state’s recognized inspection system and meets the requirements of that inspection system that apply to the conduct of those activities in respect of meat products that are intended to be exported to Canada; and (e) the name, title and signature of the authorized representative of the foreign state who makes the application. Recognition by Minister (3) The Minister must recognize a system of manufacturing, processing, treating, preserving, handling, testing, grading, coding, slaughtering, storing, packaging or labelling in respect of which an application is made if (a) the foreign state’s inspection system for the relevant meat products is recognized under subsection 170(3); and (b) the system of manufacturing, processing, treating, preserving, handling, testing, grading, coding, slaughtering, storing, packaging or labelling is subject to the inspection system referred to in paragraph (a) and meets the requirements of that inspection system that apply to those activities in respect of meat products that are intended to be exported to Canada.	PARTIE 7 Reconnaissance des systèmes étrangers Exception — mollusque 169 La présente partie ne s’applique pas à l’égard du muscle adducteur du pétoncle et de la chair de panope. Demande de reconnaissance d’un système d’inspection 170 (1) Un État étranger peut présenter au ministre une demande écrite de reconnaissance de son système d’inspection des produits de viande ou des mollusques vivants ou crus. Contenu de la demande (2) La demande contient les renseignements suivants : a) s’agissant d’un système d’inspection des produits de viande : (i) les espèces d’oiseaux ou de mammifères et une description des produits de viande qui y sont assujettis, (ii) le nombre approximatif d’établissements où la fabrication, le conditionnement, l’entreposage, l’emballage ou l’étiquetage des produits de viande destinés à être exportés au Canada seraient exercés, ainsi que les activités qui seraient exercées dans ces établissements; b) s’agissant d’un système d’inspection des mollusques vivants ou crus, les espèces et des zones de culture et de récolte qui y sont assujetties; c) le volume annuel de produits de viande ou de mollusques vivants ou crus qui y sont assujettis et dont l’exportation au Canada est prévue; d) les éléments visés aux alinéas (3)a) ou b), selon le cas; e) le nom, le titre et la signature du représentant autorisé de l’État étranger qui présente la demande. Reconnaissance par le ministre (3) Le ministre reconnaît le système d’inspection à l’égard duquel la demande est présentée si ce dernier procure un niveau de protection au moins équivalent à celui prévu par les dispositions de la Loi et du présent règlement, compte tenu des éléments suivants a) s’agissant d’un système d’inspection des produits de viande : (i) le cadre législatif applicable ainsi que les procédures et les mécanismes de contrôle applicables, (ii) la structure organisationnelle de l’autorité qui en est responsable, (iii) sa mise en œuvre, (iv) les ressources en place à l’appui des objectifs du système, (v) le traitement sans cruauté des animaux pour alimentation humaine destinés à être abattus, (vi) la surveillance des résidus chimiques et la surveillance microbiologique exercées à l’égard de ces produits, (vii) le processus de certification relatif à l’exportation de ces produits, (viii) tout autre renseignement pertinent; b) s’agissant d’un système d’inspection des mollusques vivants ou crus : (i) le cadre législatif applicable ainsi que les procédures et les mécanismes de contrôle applicables, (ii) la structure organisationnelle de l’autorité qui en est responsable, (iii) sa mise en oeuvre, (iv) les ressources mises en place à l’appui des objectifs du système, (v) la surveillance chimique et microbiologique exercée à l’égard de ces mollusques, y compris la surveillance des biotoxines, (vi) la surveillance des eaux dans les zones de culture et de récolte afin d’évaluer si elles conviennent à l’usage auquel elles sont destinées, (vii) tout autre renseignement pertinent. Demande de reconnaissance des systèmes 171 (1) Lorsque le système d’inspection des produits de viandes de l’État étranger est reconnu, l’État étranger peut présenter au ministre une demande écrite de reconnaissance des systèmes de fabrication, de transformation, de traitement, de conservation, de manipulation, d’examen, de classification, de codage, d’abattage, d’entreposage, d’emballage ou d’étiquetage qui sont utilisés dans un établissement et qui sont assujettis à ce système d’inspection. Contenu de la demande (2) La demande de reconnaissance contient les renseignements suivants : a) le nom de la personne qui exerce les activités en cause et l’adresse de l’établissement; b) le numéro d’agrément de l’établissement, ou tout autre numéro d’identification de l’établissement, fourni par l’État étranger; c) un énoncé précisant les systèmes visés par la demande; d) une déclaration du représentant autorisé de l’État étranger qui présente la demande portant que les systèmes visés par la demande sont assujettis au système d’inspection reconnu de l’État étranger et satisfont aux exigences de ce système d’inspection applicables à ces activités relativement aux produits de viande destinés à être exportés au Canada; e) le nom, le titre et la signature du représentant autorisé de l’État étranger qui présente la demande. Reconnaissance par le ministre (3) Le ministre reconnaît le système de fabrication, de transformation, de traitement, de conservation, de manipulation, d’examen, de classification, de codage, d’abattage, d’entreposage, d’emballage ou d’étiquetage visé par la demande si, à la fois : a) le système d’inspection des produits de viande de l’État étranger en cause est reconnu en vertu du paragraphe 170(3); b) le système de fabrication, de transformation, de traitement, de conservation, de manipulation, d’examen, de classification, de codage, d’abattage, d’entreposage, d’emballage ou d’étiquetage est assujetti au système d’inspection visé à l’alinéa a) et satisfait aux exigences de ce système d’inspection applicables à ces activités relativement aux produits de viande destinés à être exportés au Canada.

 

APPENDIX B

CFIA webpages described in the certified tribunal record:

1. CFIA Webpage: “Certification conditions for importation of meat products”

2. CFIA Webpage: “Conditions for importing meat products from the European Union”

3. CFIA Webpage: “Eligible countries and meat products for importation into Canada”

4. CFIA Webpage: “Operational procedure: Visual inspection of imported meat products”
   

4. CFIA Webpage: “Foreign countries establishments eligible to export meat products to Canada”

5. CFIA Webpage: “Foreign countries establishments eligible to export meat products to Canada – Results for France”

6. CFIA Webpage: “Procedures for the use of Official Meat Inspection Certificates (OMIC)”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	T-1118-24
STYLE OF CAUSE:	BEDESSEE IMPORTS LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING:	TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING:	FEBRUARY 11, 2025
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:	DUCHESNE J.
DATED:	FEBRUARY 21, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Dale Schlosser	FOR THE APPLICANT
Sara Quinn-Hogan	FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Sprigings Intellectual Property Law	FOR THE APPLICANT
Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT