b'TRIBUNAL DECISIONSummary of theA.S. LHeureux case 1A.S.LHeureuxInc.(applicant),committedavio- TheTribunalfoundthattheAgencydidnotmeetits lationundertheHealthofAnimalsRegulations Asburden of proof since it did not demonstrate that the . aresult,theCanadianFoodInspectionAgencyapplicant was negligent in failing to take all the steps (Agency) issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to thethat a responsible company would have taken under applicantwithanadministrativemonetarypenaltythe same circumstances to avoid the violation. The of$7,800,pursuanttothe AgricultureandAgri- Tribunal therefore reassessed the TGV and determined Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations that the appropriate administrative monetary penalty( AAAMP Regulations was $6,000.). The applicant filed a request for review of this NOV with the Tribunal, noting itsWe must remember that the agriculture and agri-food intention to raise a defence of due diligence and amonetary system is a legal construct comprised of two constitutional challenge. major steps which must be demonstrated by the Minister. The hearing on this matter was suspended pendingThe first step is demonstrating the violation occurred and the Federal Court of Appeals decision inMario Ct 2 ,the second is assessing the associated administrative which was dealing with similar issues. In this case,monetary penalty.the Court determined that the absolute liability regimeThis second step is to ensure that the penalty imposed undertheAgricultureandAgri-FoodAdministrativetakes into account the specific facts of each case. In an Monetary Penalties Act AAAMP Act ( ) and its exclusionabsolute liability regime, this step is particularly important of defence based on due diligence did not violate sec- for violators and for the effectiveness of the regime.tion 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequently, the applicant no longer wished to chal- Committing the violation therefore does not necessarily lenge the validity of the NOV, but only the amount of theimply that it was committed negligently or intentionally, administrative monetary penalty. and it is up to the Agency to prove negligence with The administrative monetary penalty imposed on theevidence to the specific facts.applicantwascalculatedbytheAgencyinaccor- As established inDoyon, under an absolute liability 3dance with section 5 and 6 of the AAAMP Regulations regime,decision-makersmustbecircumspectin , which stipulate that violations of this nature generallyanalyzing the evidence. This must be reflected in the result in administrative monetary penalties of $6,000,decision-makers reasons, which must be based on which can be adjusted based on the total gravityevidencerelyingonfactsandnotonspeculation, value (TGV) of the violation. The TGV is calculatedintuition or impressions. Such circumspection is also underSchedule3oftheAAFAMPR byassigningnecessaryatthesecondstepwheretheTribunalvalues to these three criteria: undertakes the assessment of the penalty resulting (1) The violators history from the violation.(2) The nature of the offenders intent or the extent of the offenders negligence(3) The extent of the harm caused or likely to be caused by the violation1. A.S. LHeureux Inc. v. Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2018 CART 9.2. Mario Ct Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 36.3. Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 152.22 CANADA AGRICULTURAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL'