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.: T-294-25 / T-432-25

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

  1. [Name 1] – Landowner or land renter subjected to regulatory enforcement without the opportunity to test or rebut evidence; concerned with rising procedural erosion.

  2. [Name 2] – Victim of property seizure without legal hearing or disclosure; seeks accountability for administrative overreach.

  3. [Name 3] – Public interest advocate researching systemic violations of procedural fairness; seeks to assist the Court on broader legal and democratic principles.

  4. [Name 4] – Operator of an independent farm vulnerable to CFIA policies; seeks to ensure lawful process and prevent irreparable harm.

  5. [Name 5] – Licensed Veterinarian] – Practitioner with expertise in animal health; concerned about due process.


  1. [Name 6 – Citizens] –  Concerned about the precedent of unchecked state action against due process and property rights.


2. GROUNDS FOR INTERVENTION

The proposed Interveners seek leave to assist the Court on matters of due process, property rights, and the binding nature of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which are not fully raised by the parties to this appeal.

While the Appellant has challenged the cull order on procedural and scientific grounds, the Interveners provide distinct and necessary submissions on:

  • Sections 1(a), 2(e), and 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights (CBOR);

  • The broader public interest in limiting administrative discretion;

  • Legal accountability for regulatory agencies acting ultra vires;

The intervention is necessary to ensure that this Court considers binding legal protections under federal law and common law, which constrain Parliament and public officials from overriding individual rights without lawful process.


3. NATURE OF INTERVENTION


If granted leave, the Interveners seek:

  • To file a joint written submission (max 10 pages) addressing:

    • The historical and legal foundations of due process and property rights;

    • The enforceability of the Canadian Bill of Rights against federal decision-makers;


  • To present oral submissions (15 minutes total) to assist the Court in:

    • Clarifying the legal, public interest implications;

    • Demonstrating the threat of precedent from unreviewable destruction orders;

    • Arguing for a rights-compliant interpretation of the Health of Animals Act (HOAA), or invalidation where not possible.


4. INTERVENER’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(In support of the Appellant)

  1. OVERVIEW

This intervention supports the Appellant’s challenge to the CFIA’s mass culling order, which violated the Appellant’s rights under sections 1(a), 2(e), and 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights (CBOR) and breached long-standing common law protections of natural justice.

The CFIA ordered the destruction of nearly 400 ostriches without:

  • Judicial oversight;

  • A hearing;

  • Full evidence disclosure;

  • Opportunity to rebut or verify the underlying allegations.

If the Health of Animals Act (HOAA) or any CFIA policy purports to authorize such irreversible actions without challenge or review, those provisions must either be:

  • Read down to preserve compliance with the CBOR; or

  • Declared inoperative under section 3 of the CBOR.

B. RIGHTS ENGAGED – CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1(a) – Enjoyment of Property

“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.”

The CFIA’s actions deprived the Appellant of private property without any due process.

Section 2(e) – Right to a Fair Hearing

“The right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.”

Violated by:

  • Denial of independent scientific testing;

  • Refusal to disclose basis for decision;

  • No neutral arbiter;

  • Execution of irreversible actions before judicial review.

Section 3 – Override Protection

“… shall not be construed as abrogating, abridging or derogating from any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.”

This prohibits Parliament or any federal body from using legislation or regulation to bypass rights recognized in sections 1 and 2.


C. LEGISLATIVE CONFLICT & REQUESTED REMEDY

(1) Interpretive Presumption – Rights-Conforming Reading

The Court must adopt an interpretation of the HOAA that conforms with the CBOR wherever possible (see R. v. Appulonappa, 2015 SCC 59).

(2) Inoperability under CBOR s. 3

If section 48 of HOAA precludes meaningful challenge or hearing, it is inoperative to the extent of inconsistency.

(3) Striking or Severance

If a rights-conforming interpretation is impossible, the Court should strike or sever the unconstitutional provisions or declare them inconsistent.

5. RELEVANT CASE LAW  


Case Law Table – Supporting the Appeal of Universal Ostrich Farms Inc.

Case

Court & Citation

Holding / Principle

Application to This Appeal

R. v. Drybones

Supreme Court of Canada, [1970] S.C.R. 282

A federal statute was declared inoperative for conflicting with s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Confirms that federal legislation inconsistent with fundamental rights (e.g. due process and property rights) is inoperative under the Bill of Rights.

Roncarelli v. Duplessis

Supreme Court of Canada, [1959] S.C.R. 121

State officials are personally liable when using statutory powers arbitrarily or in bad faith.

CFIA agents and decision-makers may be personally liable if they enforced destruction orders without legal basis or process.

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration)

Supreme Court of Canada, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177

Denial of an oral hearing in immigration matters violated fundamental justice.

Reinforces the necessity of a fair hearing before administrative action—supports challenge to CFIA decisions made without hearing.

R. v. Appulonappa

Supreme Court of Canada, 2015 SCC 59

Statutes must be interpreted consistently with rights; courts must read down or strike where rights are violated.

Supports reading down HOAA provisions or CFIA policy to preserve procedural fairness and Bill of Rights guarantees.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Vavilov

Supreme Court of Canada, 2019 SCC 65

Courts must set aside administrative decisions that lack legal justification or transparency.

CFIA decisions lacking explanation, evidence, or lawful authority are reviewable and liable to be struck.

Côté v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal, 2021 FCA 156

Confirms that the Canadian Bill of Rights has quasi-constitutional status and federal laws must conform to it.

Strengthens the argument that CFIA actions must comply with the Bill of Rights, including rights to property and fair hearing.

Attorney General v. Power

Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal, 2024 NLCA 19

Provincial court struck down legislation for violating natural justice and property rights; upheld on appeal.

Demonstrates judicial authority to strike legislation or actions that bypass due process or infringe on property rights.

These cases affirm that rights under the Bill of Rights, common law, and administrative fairness cannot be overridden by discretion, policy, or convenience.


6. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Interveners respectfully request:

  1. An order granting leave to intervene in this appeal;

  2. Permission to file a joint written submission (max 10 pages);

  3. Leave to present oral submissions (15 minutes total) at the hearing;

  4. A declaration that relevant legislation must be interpreted consistently with:

    • Section 1(a) – enjoyment of property and due process;

    • Section 2(e) – fair hearing before deprivation of rights;

  5. Alternatively, a declaration that any inconsistent provisions of the HOAA are of no force or effect in law, pursuant to section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

  6. Recognition that personal liability may attach to officials who knowingly enforce rights-infringing decisions in the absence of lawful justification;

  7. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

7. SUPPORTING MATERIAL

This motion will be supported by:

  • Affidavits from each proposed Intervener;

  • A draft outline of proposed submissions;

  • Any other materials required by the Court.


DATED at [City], this [Day] of [Month], 2025.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name]

[Contact Information]

[Role or Affiliation, if any]

[Signature, if required]