b'TRIBUNAL DECISION SUMMARY OF ACHEAMPONG 5 CASE The first opportunity to raise a complaint about language difficulties or a lack of interpretation in an administrative proceeding is in a request for review of a Notice of Violation to the Minister or the Tribunal, not during an inspection by a Border services officer.The Tribunal noted that the Mohammadian case applies to complaints about interpretation in Ms. Acheampong arrived in Canada from Ghanaadministrative proceedings (emphasis added) and declared she was not bringing any food, plantnot an administrative process, based on the or animal products into the country. A searchright to interpretation under section 14 of the revealed that she had six (6) kg of dried cow meatCanadian Chart of Rights and Freedoms. The and two (2) kg of taro root with soil residue in herTribunal observed that the interaction between luggage. Ms. Acheampong received a notice ofa Border services officer and a traveller is not an violation with a $1300 penalty for failing to declareadministrative proceeding, though it might be the dried cow meat.6 characterized as an administrative process. The Ms. Acheampong argued that she was not fluentTribunal concluded that the first opportunity to in English, that she did not have an interpretermake a complaint about lack of interpretation induring the search of her luggage and that she didan administrative proceeding is in the first request not understand what transpired during the search.for review either to the Minister or the Tribunal.The Canada Border Services Agency argued thatThe evidence in the case did not support a finding if Ms. Acheampongs lack of understanding ofthat Ms. Acheampongs lack of understanding English was a genuine issue, she should haveof English amounted to complete inability to raised it at the first opportunity, during primaryappreciate the nature and consequences of her or secondary (luggage) inspection. The Agencyactions and did not excuse her responsibility for cited the Federal Court of Appeal decision incommitting the violation. Her explanation that she Mohammadian7 to support the proposition thatdid not know that cow meat must be declared parties involved in an administrative processis a defense of mistake of fact, which is explicitly should raise a complaint about interpretation excluded by legislation.8 Ms. Acheampong at the first opportunity. committed the violation and must pay the penalty.5Acheampong v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2022 CART 06.6Contrary to subsection 16(1) of the Health of Animals Act.7Mohammadian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 191.8Paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. 15'