b'TRIBUNAL DECISIONSUMMARY OF TWINMAPLELTD. CASE 7Twin Maple Produce Ltd. (Twin Maple) is the parent5.The meat product was not produced by a regis-company of a number of companies including Frasertered establishment in accordance with the MIA Valley Duck and Goose (Fraser Valley) that operatesand Meat Inspection Regulations, and/or the meat both a provincial and federal establishment registeredproductdoesnotcomplywiththeprescribed for the sale of their poultry production. The Canadianstandardsincludingpackagingandlabelling Food Inspection Agency (Agency) was informed thatrequirements.FraserValleysprovinciallyregulatedproductswere observed at Lamba Supermarket located in Calgary,Twin Maple denied having any role in its Fraser Valley Alberta.AsaresultoftheAgencysinvestigationprovincially labelled products being found in Alberta. a Notice of Violation (NOV) with a penalty of $6,000It contended that its business relationship with Kaiser was issued against Twin Maple for the interprovincialFoods was limited to the delivery of products to that shipping of meat in violation of section 8 of the MeatcompanysshippingaddressinVancouver,British Inspection Act (MIA). The company had a total of fiveColombia. The fact that this address was later found NOVs under review by the Tribunal with similar facts. to be an intermediary for onward transit to Alberta was beyond its control.A series of mandatory Case Management Conference Calls (CMC) were held in order to narrow the issues andCentral to the outcome of this case was the parties come to the consensus that the Tribunal would proceedinterpretation of the word send, put in context, who to a hearing of the facts pertaining to only one of the fivesenttheprovinciallylabelledproductsfromBritish NOVs that would be determinative for all. ColumbiatoAlberta.AccordingtotheAgencys interpretation Parliament must have intended to cap-The essential elements that must be proven on a bal- ture every person that plays a part in the chain of ance of probabilities for a violation of s 8 of the MIA aremovement. as follows:TheTribunalundertookastatutoryanalysisusing 1.There is a meat product; and the modern purposive approach and concluded that 2.The meat product was sent or conveyed; and theAgencysexpansiveinterpretationcouldnotbe adopted in light of the text, context, and purpose of 3.The meat product was sent or conveyed interprov- the MIA.incially; andGiven this finding and the lack of evidence that Twin 4.The applicant is the person who sent or conveyedMaple participated in the supply chain leading to its the meat product; and provincially labelled products ending up in Alberta, the Tribunal concluded that it did not violate s 8 of the MIA. This conclusion was determinative for the other four similar cases before the Tribunal. 7. Twin Maple Produce Ltd. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2019 CART 7.20 CANADA AGRICULTURAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL'