b'JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARY OFGANTCHEFF 8Mr. Gantcheff, the applicant, arrived in Canada on aThe Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Gantcheffs private flight returning from Bulgaria following a stopapplication for judicial review with costs, finding the in the United States. He brought with him, to eat dur- Tribunals decision reasonable on two grounds. First, ing the flight, peppers stuffed with beef that had beenthe Court found that it was not unreasonable for the prepared by one of his family members in Bulgaria. HeTribunal to conclude that Mr. Gantcheff had violated and the other passengers were unable to eat all thesubsection 16(1) of the HAA by importing the stuffed stuffed peppers during the flight, so Mr. Gantcheff putpeppersintoCanadaashehadbroughttheminto the remaining peppers in bags, with the intention ofthe country. Second, because the monetary penalty throwing them away. system established by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr.GantchefffilledoutacustomsdeclarationtheAdministrativeMonetaryPenaltiesAct(AAAMPAct) day before his arrival in Canada with no mention thatcreates an absolute liability regime, the lack of intent hewouldbeimportingpeppersstuffedwithbeef.on the part of the defendant is not relevant. Subsection Afterlanding,theCanadaBorderServicesAgency18(1) of the AAAMP Act provides that it is no defence (Agency), upon inspection, discovered the undeclaredthat the offender took the necessary actions to pre-bag containing stuffed peppers. The Agency deter- vent the violation or that they reasonably and honestly mined that Mr. Gantcheff had committed a violation ofbelieved that there were facts that, if true, would exon-subsection 16(1) of the Health of Animals Act (HAA) forerate them.failing to declare a meat product. The Agency issuedInparticular,theFederalCourtofAppealreiter-a notice of violation with an administrative monetaryated the importance of Doyon 9 , establishing that the penalty of $1,300. AAAMPActregimeincorporatesthemostpunitive Mr. Gantcheff applied for a review of the notice of vio- aspects of penal law, while simultaneously excludes lation by the Minister who upheld the violation and dis- useful defences and reduces the prosecutors burden missed the application for review. Mr. Gantcheff thenof proof. Absolute liability, arising from proof that the filed an application for review with the Tribunal, whichactus reus has occurred, which the prosecutor does upheld the Ministers decision.not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, leaves thepersonwhocommitsaviolationwithveryfew defences. 8. This decision is only available in French : Gantcheff c.9. Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 152, atCanada (Procureur gnral), 2019 CAF 317. paragraph 27.ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 21'