b'THE NEWHEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONSFebruary 2020 marked the coming into force of someIt appears to be clear the new version of the HAR elim-amendmentstoPartXIIoftheHealthofAnimalsinates the expression undue exposure to the weather Regulations (HAR), which deals with the transport ofand instead uses being exposed to meteorological or animals. The amendments are not insignificant in thatenvironmental conditions.they will most likely alter the current case law approachIn short, the amendments increase the scope of the used by the Tribunal up until now.offence because any suffering caused to an animal as For example, the former paragraph 143(1)(d) of thea result of being exposed to meteorological or environ-HARprohibitedtransportingananimalorhavingitmental conditions will be found to be in violation of the transported if injury or undue suffering is likely to beprovisions of the HAR. It appears that the Tribunals caused to the animals by reason of undue exposureprevious case law5will be difficult to apply to future to the weather. The Tribunal interpreted the conceptchallengestonoticesofviolationissuedunderthis of undue suffering by placing special emphasis onamended section.the use of the term undue. It had found that this word meantinappropriate,improper,unwarrantedor unreasonable. 1 1. Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2017 FCA 45, at para. 62; Canada v. Porcherie des cdres inc., 2005 FCA Indoingso,itrecognizedthatnotallsufferingor59, at para. 26. exposuretotheweathernecessarilyconstitutesa2. Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., supra note 2, at para. 61.violationofparagraph143(1)(d)oftheRSA. 2 That3. R. v. Maple Lodge Farms, 2013 ONCJ 535, at paras. 292 to 297. interpretation was subsequently taken up by a court 4. That impact analysis summary can be read below the regulationsresponsible for trying a criminal prosecution under thein the Canada Gazette, Part II, vol. 153, no. 4, online:same provision. 3 http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-02-20/html/ sor-dors38-eng.html (accessed on May 2, 2020). However, section 146 of the HAR, which replaces for- 5. See decisions including the following:mer paragraph 143(1)(d), no longer refers to the termSure Fresh Foods Inc. v. Canada (CFIA), 2010 CART 16; 9020-2516 Qubec inc. v. Canada (CFIA), 2011 CART7;undue to describe the suffering or exposure to thePoirier-Bdard Lte v. Canada (CFIA), 2012 CART 23;weather. It is prohibited to load, confine or transportExceldor Cooprative v. Canada (CFIA), 2014 CART 8; 473629Ontario Inc. v. Canada (CFIA), 2014 CART29; 473629an animal in or unload an animal from a conveyanceOntario Inc. v. Canada (CFIA), 2014 CART 30;or container, or cause one to be so loaded, confined,Prairie Pride Natural Foods Ltd. v. Canada (CFIA), 2016 CART 4.transported or unloaded, if the animal is likely to suffer, sustain an injury or die due to inadequate ventilation or by being exposed to meteorological or environmental conditions. Thesummaryoftheimpactanalysis 4 ontheHAR states that, that routine transportation of animals, when properly conducted, should not lead to any degree of suffering. As a result, it was decided that Suffering will not be qualified in other instances where an animal should not experience any degree of suffering []. ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 13'