CANADA AGRICULTURAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL 18 Since 2013, the Tribunal has been managing a series of cases involving a constitutional challenge to the absolute liability administrative monetary penalties regime in agriculture and agri-food. The effect of this constitutional challenge was the placing in abeyance of 27 livestock transport review cases from the province of Quebec pending the outcome of the challenge. What follows is a summary of the proceedings in six separate phases. Phase 1 – Superior Court of Quebec (SCQ) The Applicants Attempt to Refer the Constitutional Challenge to the SCQ 9126‑5553 Québec inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), 2014 QCCS 3965 The applicants in this case were numbered companies associ- ated with Mario Côté inc. (MCI), a major hog transporting com- pany in Quebec. There were 12 cases before the Tribunal, but the applicants turned to the Superior Court of Quebec (SCQ) seeking a declaratory judgment. They were challenging the constitutionality of sections 18 and 19 of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAAMP Act) that establish an absolute liability regime where there is no defence of due diligence and which applies the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. The applicants claimed that there was a violation of section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The SCQ did not consider the merits of those arguments because it believed that the proceedings before it were an attempt to circumvent the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider constitu- tional challenges, and it believed that the latter should not be bypassed. In addition, the SCQ found no reason to exercise its residual jurisdiction. Phase 2 – Tribunal’s Decision The Tribunal Upholds the Constitutionality of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act Mario Côté inc. v. Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2015 CART 25 Before the Tribunal, after case management conferences were held, the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts, and MCI submitted four affidavits from livestock transporters describing the difficulties experienced due to the absolute liability regime. MCI also acknowledged having committed the violation under the current absolute liability regime. MCI challenged the constitution- ality of sections 18 and 19 of the AAAMP Act essentially raising the same arguments presented to the SCQ. Claiming that the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary penalty system was criminal in nature, MCI argued that it should enjoy all the protections set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Charter, especially that the violation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard of proof, and not simply on a balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof. The Tribunal found that the applicable statutory provisions focus on compliance and not punishment. It therefore rejected that argument. As a second argument, MCI alleged a violation of section 7 of the Charter with respect to the livestock carriers right to security of the person. The Tribunal found that only serious psychological stress caused by the state could trigger section 7 of the Charter and that it is rare for an administrative proceeding to reach that level. In addition, the Tribunal found that section 7 of the Charter does not protect rights of a purely economic nature, such as the right to work in the profession of one’s choice. Summary of the Mario Côté inc. Cases in 6 Phases