Canada (Attorney General) v. Walker
The Tribunal's factual finding that the applicant did not prove a violation of s.176(2) was supported by sufficient evidence and did not reflect a misinterpretation of the regulation; therefore the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 44
- Parties
- Applicant: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf of the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY; Respondent: HOWARD WALKER
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Interpretation of Regulation, Proof of Regulatory Offence Under S.176(2)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf of the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
Applicant
HOWARD WALKER
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Howard Walker removed a cow in breach of s.176(2) of the Health of Animals Regulations by removing an animal not wearing an approved ear tag
- 2 Whether the Review Tribunal misinterpreted s.176(2) in reaching its conclusion
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's factual finding that the applicant did not prove a violation of s.176(2) was supported by sufficient evidence and did not reflect a misinterpretation of the regulation; therefore the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Walker Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-01-28 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 44 File numbers A-348-03 Decision Content Date: 20040128 Docket: A-348-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 44 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf of the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY Applicant and HOWARD WALKER Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. Date: 20040128 Docket: A-348-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 44 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf of the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY Applicant and HOWARD WALKER Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2004) EVANS J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Review Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the applicant in these proceedings, had not proved that Howard Walker had violated subsection 176(2) of the Health of Animals Regulations, SOR/91-525, by removing, or causing the removal of, a cow from his farm when the animal was not wearing an approved ear tag. [2] We are all of the opinion that the application should be dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was factual in nature and there was sufficient evidence before it to enable the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that it did. We are not persuaded that the Tribunal's decision was based on a misinterpretation of subsection 176(2), as counsel for the applicant alleged. [3] For these reasons, the application will be dismissed with costs. "John M. Evans" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET : A-348-03 STYLE OF CAUSE : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf of the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY Applicant and HOWARD WALKER Respondent PLACE OF HEARING : TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING : JANUARY 28, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT : (STRAYER, SEXTON, EVANS JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: EVANS J.A. APPEARANCES : Ms. Sogie Sabeta FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. Douglas Lewis Mr. Patrick Lassaline FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Lewis, Downey, Tornosky and Lassaline Orillia, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT