Link to google doc version of the appliction: LINK
Section 1. The court document on intervention
Section 2. Definitions of terms in the court doc
Section 1. Court Document for Intervention
COURT FILE NO.: [insert file number]
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARMS INC.
Appellant
– and –
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
(Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules)
TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT AND TO THE PARTIES:
TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned individuals hereby bring a motion for an order granting leave to intervene in this appeal.
1. NAMES AND INTERESTS OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENERS
[Name 1] – Personally impacted by administrative action infringing property rights without a fair hearing; seeks to defend the right to due process under federal law.
[Name 2] – A landowner subjected to regulatory enforcement with no opportunity to contest evidence or assert defences; concerned with rising procedural denial.
[Name 3] – Suffered seizure of property without legal hearing or disclosure; seeks accountability for administrative overreach.
[Name 4] – A public interest advocate researching state violations of procedural fairness; seeks to assist the Court on the broader legal and democratic significance.
[Name 5] – Operator of an independent farm vulnerable to CFIA policy application; seeks to ensure lawful process and prevent irreparable harm without remedy.
[Name 6 – Licensed Veterinarian] – A veterinarian with practical expertise in animal health; concerned about CFIA enforcement bypassing expert evidence and veterinary process.
[Name 7 – Virologist or Veterinary Epidemiologist] – A scientific expert in zoonotic disease; seeks to ensure that regulatory decisions invoking public health risk are subject to scientific and judicial scrutiny, not arbitrary enforcement.
2. GROUNDS FOR INTERVENTION
This appeal raises foundational legal issues concerning due process, the right to property, scientific accountability, and the proper role of ministerial and judicial oversight under Canadian law.
Although the Minister of Justice already holds statutory oversight authority, this intervention seeks to ensure that the judiciary upholds and enforces those rights guaranteed under statute and common law, particularly where such rights have not been respected in practice by administrative actors.
Statutory Basis – Canadian Bill of Rights
The Canadian Bill of Rights remains binding on all federal decision-makers, including the CFIA and the Minister of Justice. It guarantees:
Section 1(a) –
“the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.”
Section 2(e) –
“the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.”
Common Law and Constitutional Principles
Due process is a cornerstone of the rule of law. No person may be deprived of liberty or property without notice, an opportunity to be heard, and lawful authority.
Relevant authorities include:
Magna Carta (1215), Clause 39 – No property seizure without lawful judgment.
Entick v. Carrington (1765) – State must justify intrusions into private life.
Cooper v. Wandsworth (1863) – Statutory power does not displace the right to a fair hearing.
Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959) – Personal liability may attach for abuse of public authority.
Authorson v. Canada (2003) – Common law rights prevail unless clearly and lawfully displaced.
Campbell Motors v. Gordon (1946) – Property cannot be taken without fair hearing.
Attorney General v. Power (2024 FC) – Federal Court held that officials who enforce legislation violating procedural rights may face personal legal consequences unless those laws are read in or repealed.
3. NATURE OF INTERVENTION
If granted leave, the Interveners seek:
To file a joint written submission (maximum 10 pages) addressing:
The historical and legal basis of due process and property protection
The continuing force of the Canadian Bill of Rights
The requirement that federal agencies, including the CFIA, act within both legal and scientific constraints
To present oral submissions (15 minutes jointly or divided) to assist the Court in:
Clarifying how current CFIA practices threaten core legal and scientific standards
Addressing the risk of procedural erosion and misuse of emergency powers
Supporting the Court in requiring lawful interpretation or invalidation of offending measures
4. RELIEF SOUGHT
The Interveners respectfully request an order:
Granting leave to intervene in this appeal;
Permitting the filing of a joint written submission not exceeding 10 pages;
Granting permission to present oral submissions at the hearing;
Declaring that the relevant legislation and administrative policies must be interpreted to be consistent with:
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights (protection of property and due process)
Section 2(e) (right to a fair hearing before deprivation of rights)
Alternatively, where such an interpretation is not reasonably available, declaring the offending provisions of no force or effect;
Public officials who knowingly enforce measures that violate rights may be held personally liable if those measures are not corrected by legislation or properly interpreted to respect those rights.
Granting such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may consider just and appropriate in the circumstances.
5. SUPPORTING MATERIAL
This motion will be supported by:
Affidavits from each proposed Intervener setting out their experience, expertise, or legal interest;
A draft outline of proposed submissions;
Any additional material requested by the Court.
DATED at [City], this [Day] of [Month], 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
[Jane Scharf, Agent or Legal Representative]
[Contact Information]
[Signature if required]
📘 Definitions for the Court Intervene Document
Legal Term or Phrase
Explanation
Court File No.
A number given to the case so the court can keep track of it. Like a student ID for the case.
Federal Court of Appeal
A special court that checks if lower court decisions were fair and legal.
Appellant
The person or group that is appealing (asking for a higher court to review a decision). In this case, Universal Ostrich Farms.
Respondent
The other side in the case—the group defending the original decision. Here, it’s the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).
Notice of Motion for Leave to Intervene
A formal request asking the court to let other people (not originally in the case) speak up because the case affects them too.
Motion
A request made to the judge during a case.
Leave to Intervene
Permission to join a case to share your views or information because it affects you or the public.
Intervener
A person who wants to join the case to help the court understand why it matters to more people.
Due Process
The right to be treated fairly by the law. It means the government must follow rules before taking your property or freedom.
Property Rights
The right to own things (like animals, land, or a business) and not have them taken away without a good reason and legal steps.
Common Law
Old legal rules created by judges over hundreds of years. They still matter today unless a new law clearly replaces them.
Canadian Bill of Rights
A law that protects your basic freedoms, like the right to own property and have a fair hearing.
Section 1(a)
This part says you have the right to life, freedom, safety, and property, and the government can’t take them away unless they follow the law.
Section 2(e)
This part says you have the right to a fair hearing before someone makes a big decision about your rights.
Administrative Power
When government departments (like the CFIA) make decisions that affect people—like telling farmers to kill animals.
CFIA Mandate and Arbitrary Culling Powers
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is a federal agency tasked with protecting animal and food health. Under its mandate, it holds the power to issue culling orders—the forced killing of farm animals—not only for confirmed disease, but based solely on suspicion or perceived risk.
This means the CFIA can order the destruction of healthy animals:
Without clinical symptoms,
Without independent veterinary confirmation,
Based only on suspicion or on non-standardized and unverifiable test results or risk models,
With no meaningful right to challenge or appeal.
Farmers who want to test their own birds or get treatment for them with up to $200,000 fine and/or up to six months in jail.
This use of arbitrary state power to kill animals on suspicion alone raises serious concerns about due process, property rights, and scientific integrity.
Affidavit
A written statement someone swears is true. It’s used as evidence in court.
Oral Submissions
Speaking to the judge to explain your point of view.
Written Submissions
A short paper explaining your legal argument or why the case matters.
Relief Sought
What the person is asking the judge to let them do—like join the case and share their opinion.
Statutory Law
Laws passed by Parliament.
Evidentiary Burden
The duty to show real proof before making a serious decision, like destroying animals.
Fundamental Justice
The basic fairness that all people deserve when the government makes decisions about them.