b'TRIBUNAL DECISION SUMMARY OF WAITO BROS. CASE 4The issue in this case is whether a hogAn Agency inspector noticed one hogtransported by Waito Bros. was fit forwith a very large umbilical hernia. An Agency transport and whether it suffered undulyveterinarian conducted examinations before during the journey. The hog in question and after slaughter, and found a large, had a very large umbilical hernia. pendulous umbilical hernia about 10 inches in diameter with ulcerations and scabs on The Health of Animals Act (HA Act)the underside. The veterinarian also noted and Regulations (HA Regulations) setthat the hernia touched the floor, rubbed out requirements to ensure the humaneagainst the hindlegs of the hog and impeded treatment of animals during transportation.its movement. The scabs indicated that the Paragraph 138(2)(a) of the HA Regulationshernia had been touching the ground priorprohibits any person from transporting anto transportation.animal with an injury or infirmity that would cause undue suffering during the expectedFollowing the Doyon5decision, there must journey. The Compromised Animals Policyalso be proof that the animal actually suffered published by the Canada Food Inspectionunduly during the expected journey. In the Agency (Agency) provides guidance for theveterinarians opinion, the swinging of the humane transport of animals. It states that anherniated mass during the movements of the animal is unfit for transport if it has a herniahog in transit would result in downward tension that impedes movement, touches the animalson the intestines causing pain. The touching legs while walking, touches the ground whileand rubbing of the hernia against the floor the animal is standing and/or includes anwhile walking on uneven surfaces, on ramps and open wound or ulceration. While this policylying down also likely caused pain due to the is not binding on the Tribunal, it can providefriction on existing skin ulcers. Mr. Waito did not guidance to assess the fitness of the animalsubmit any evidence or observations regarding for transport. pain or undue suffering of the hog, or lack thereof, during transportation.Mr. Waito delivered a load of the hogs to a processing facility and admitted that he wasThe Tribunal concluded that not only was aware that one of the hogs had a hernia. In histhe hog unfit for transportation, the pain it opinion, it did not inhibit movement. He wassuffered during the journey was undue in the however aware that if a hernia was touchingsense of being unjustified and unreasonable the ground, the hog was unfit for transport. and resulted from the transportation. The Tribunal ordered Mr. Waito to pay the penalty of $800 for violating paragraph 138(2)(a)of the HA Regulations.4 Waito Bros Inc. v. Canada (Canadian Food 5 Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 152. Inspection Agency), 2020 CART 24.ANNUAL REPORT 2020-2021 15'