b'TRIBUNAL DECISION SUMMARY OF HARWIL 9CASEThe issue in this case was whether Harwil FarmsIn Doyon,10 the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) Modile Feeds Ltd. (Harwil) was liable for theasserted that violations under the administrative violation indicated in the Notice of Violationmonetary penalty system should be analyzed (Notice) issued with a $6600 penalty by theaccording to their essential elements, each of Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Agency). Thewhich must be proven on a balance of probabilities Agency indicted Harwil for transporting two hogsbefore an applicant can be considered at fault. In that could not have been transported withoutorder for a person to be found liable for a violation undue suffering during the expected journey.of paragraph 138(2)(a) of the HA Regulations, the The Agency inspector issued the Notice afterAgency must establish seven essential elements. observing one pig in the load with a severe rectalThe FCA clearly stated that decision-makers prolapse and another with a fractured femur. must rely on evidence-based facts and not mere conjecture, let alone speculation, hunches, The Health of Animals Act (HA Act) and Regulationsimpressions or hearsay.(HA Regulation) set out requirements to ensure humane treatment of animals during transportation.In this case, the evidence gathered by the Paragraph 138(2)(a) of the HA Regulation prohibitsAgencys veterinarian prior to the issuance of any person from transporting an animal with anthe Notice confirmed that the injury to the hog injury or infirmity that would cause undue sufferingwith a broken femur was not present at the time during the expected journey. In this case, theof loading. Under paragraph 138(2) a) of the HA inspectors relied on the Compromised AnimalsRegulation, Harwil cannot be held liable if upon Policy (Policy) published by the Agency to establishloading there are no conditions which could lead that the hogs suffered unduly during transport.to undue suffering during transport. For Harwil to While the Policy is not binding on the Tribunal, be considered at fault, the Agency therefore had it serves as a guide to the industry.to establish that the hog with a rectal prolapse suffered unduly during transport.9Harwil Farms Mobile Feeds Ltd. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2022 CART 08.10 Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009CAF152.16'