PURSUANT TO THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT
Ottawa, Ontario, June 30, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen, Deputy Assessor
BETWEEN:
and
AGRI-FOODCANADA
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT
[1] This is an appeal to the Assessor under section 56 of the Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21 (Act) from a decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada compensating the appellant for Silkie breeders ordered destroyed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The ground of the appeal is that the amount awarded to the appellant, Mr. Donaldson, for his Silkie breeders was unreasonable. This is an appeal arising from the March 2004 detection of the avian influenza (AI) on two poultry farms in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. The detection of AI led to the destruction of millions of birds by the respondent to prevent the spread of the disease.
Facts
[2] At the appeal the parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts, which reads as follows:
Agreed Statement of Facts
1. In March of 2004, avian influenza was detected on two farms in the Fraser Valley area of British Columbia. On March 11, 2004, the minister of Agriculture (the "Minister") declared the establishment of a control area to prevent the spread of avian influenza.
2. All birds that were located on farms within the control area were ordered to be destroyed in accordance with the Health of Animals Act, 1990, c. 21 (the "Act").
3. Rob Donaldson is an owner of Bradner Farms which is one of the largest specialty bird producers in western Canada (the "Appellant"). On May 5, 2004, CFIA agents tested birds on the farm and found that there were positive results for avian influenza in some birds (not amongst the Silkie Breeder population); therefore, the decision was made to depopulate the infected premises.
4. A variety of different types and species of birds and eggs were destroyed on the farm in early May, 2004, including the Appellant's Silkie Breeder replacements.
5. A meeting was held on June 29, 2004, to discuss the value of the birds destroyed. Rob Donaldson and Mr. Vafa Alizadeh represented Bradner Farms and CFIA was represented by Richard Armstrong (evaluator) and Joseph Beres (veterinarian).
6. CFIA compensated the Appellant for the Silkie Breeder replacements in accordance with an economic grid that had been prepared by Kirsti Bergmeier, who is an Analysis Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) economist.
7. The amount of compensation paid for the Silkie Breeder Replacements was as follows:
| Barn ID |
Quantity |
Category |
Sex |
Age |
Value per bird |
Total |
| 9 |
8,755 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
F |
36 wks |
$13.57 |
$118,805.35 |
|
|
1,000 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
M |
36 wks |
$13.57 |
$13,570.00 |
| 65 |
12,376 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
F |
18 wks |
$11.66 |
$144,304.16 |
|
|
1,492 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
M |
18 wks |
$11.66 |
$17,396.72 |
| 66 |
12,122 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
F |
16 wks |
$10.81 |
$131,038.82 |
|
|
1,351 |
Silkie Breeder Rep. |
M |
16 wks |
$10.81 |
$14,604.31 |
| Totals |
37,096 |
|
|
|
|
$439,719.36 |
8. On November 4, 2004, a Notice of Appeal was filed with respect to the above compensation. In his letter of appeal, Mr. Donaldson takes issue with the awarded value, stating that the value is unreasonably lower than fair market value.
9. A Reply to Mr. Donaldson's Notice of Appeal was filed on December 10, 2004, in which CFIA took the position that the compensation paid was market value.
10. An application for a time and place for hearing was filed in court on February 8, 2006.
About Silkies
[3] The Silkie is a breed of poultry with white feathers which have a silky hair-like appearance, hence the name "Silkie". They are skinny compared with regular broiler chickens. They are usually cooked for a broth called "Silkie Soup", which is for medicinal purposes. Some persons consider the Silkie a game bird, like a partridge or guinea hen, while other persons consider the Silkie a type of chicken. How it is properly classified is one of the issues in this case. The Silkie breeders are different than Silkie meat birds which are grown for human consumption. The Silkie breeder replacements are young Silkies which have not yet matured, and will be Silkie breeders when they are old enough to lay eggs. For the purpose of this appeal I will not distinguish between Silkie breeders and Silkie breeder replacements.
About Rob Donaldson
[4] The Appellant, Mr. Rob Donaldson, owns Bradner Farms in Abbotsford, British Columbia. He is one of the largest specialty bird producers in western Canada, and is the largest Silkie producer in North America. In 1983, when he took over the family business, he had two poultry barns. He now has 92 poultry barns. His gross revenue in 2005 was approximately $17 million. He has saturated the North American market for Silkies, and had been preparing to expand his business to Asia. He had been developing his breeder stock of Silkies for two years, and was about to make his first shipment to Hong Kong at the time the avian influenza broke out in British Columbia, and he had to destroy his Silkie breeder population.
Health of Animals ActNotice -- Requirement to Dispose and Award of Compensation
[5] Following the detection of avian influenza, also known as "bird flu", in the Abbotsford area of the Fraser Valley, on March 11, 2004 the Minister declared a control area which included properties owned by the appellant on which he raised and produced specialty birds. In May 2005, under subsection 48(1) of the Act, veterinary inspectors from CFIA issued the appellant two "Notices" of the Requirement to Dispose and Award of Compensation, requiring the appellant dispose of 70,467 birds determined or suspected to be contaminated by avian influenza:
1. on May 7, 2005, J. Phillip Owen, DVM (doctor of veterinary medicine) required and certified the disposal of 48,590 Taiwanese chicken broilers and Silkie Breeders located at the appellant's property at 6847 Satchell Road, Abbotsford, BC; and
2. on May 8, 2005, Dr. Douglas Aitken required and certified the disposal of 21,877 organic layers, Taiwanese chicken broilers, duck breeders, and Silkie Breeders located at the appellant's property at 28670 - 58th Avenue, Abbotsford, BC.
[6] While the report of the CFIA inspectors states that the appellant's birds tested negative for avian influenza, the decision was made to depopulate the premises because the properties fell within the zone declared by the Minister.
Compensation
[7] Pursuant to paragraph 51(1)(a) of the Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food compensated the appellant for the destruction of his birds. The appellant does not take issue with the compensation paid for his Taiwanese chicken broilers, organic layers and duck breeders, but does challenge the compensation for his 37,096 Silkie breeders in the amount of $439,719.36, assessed as shown in the Agreed Statement of Facts.
[8] The objective of the compensation program for destroyed animals is so that farmers will report disease early knowing that they will receive full compensation. By providing fair compensation on an immediate basis, the farmer is encouraged to undertake the necessary steps for disease management.
Relevant Legislation
[9] The legislation relevant to this appeal is:
1. Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21 (Act); and
2. Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations, SOR/2000-233 (Regulations).
The relevant excerpts of these authorities are set out in Appendix "A" following these reasons.
Issues
[10] The only issue in this appeal is whether the amount awarded to the appellant for his Silkie breeders was unreasonable.
Analysis
[11] Subsection 56(1) of the Act provides that the grounds of appeal to the Assessor are "that the failure to award compensation was unreasonable or that the amount awarded was unreasonable." In this case, the decision being appealed was one in which the appellant was compensated. Therefore, the ground of appeal is whether the amount of compensation paid for the Silkie breeders was unreasonable.
Appellant's Position
[12] The appellant submits that the amount of $439,719.36 he was compensated for his Silkie breeders was not reasonable because the compensation paid by the CFIA per animal ($13.57 for birds aged 36 weeks; $11.66 for birds aged 18 weeks; and $10.81 for birds aged 16 weeks) was less than the market value, which is the cost required to raise and produce them.
Respondent's Position
[13] The respondent submits that the CFIA determined the market values for the Silkie breeders after the CFIA evaluators consulted the industry and the appellant.
The Witnesses
[14] The evidence before the Assessor was given orally. The appellant called three witnesses, and the respondent called four witnesses. The witnesses for the appellant were:
1. Mr. Rob Donaldson, the owner of Bradner Farms and the Silkie breeders;
2. Mr. Ken Falk, President, Fraser Valley Duck and Goose Limited; and President, Specialty Birds Association; and
3. Mr. Vafa Aizadeh, the general manager of the poultry division of Bradner Farms, and university-trained in animal husbandry and agricultural engineering. He is experienced with poultry and Silkie breeders.
[15] The witnesses for the respondent were:
1. Dr. Kim Cheng, a professor at the University of British Columbia, and an acknowledged expert on poultry including Silkies. The appellant accepted Dr. Cheng as an expert witness;
2. Dr. Joseph Beres, a veterinarian and an inspection manager with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He chaired the team responsible for compensating the owners of specialty birds destroyed because of the avian influenza;
3. Mr. Richard Armstrong, an employee of Agriculture Canada sent from Ottawa to Abbotsford on June 23, 2004, to assess the market value of the poultry destroyed under the Health of Animals Act; and
4. Ms. Kirsti Bergmeier, an agricultural economist employed by the respondent, graduated in 2003 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in agricultural economics. In the spring of 2004 she conducted an economic impact assessment for the respondent with respect to the value of birds destroyed because of the avian flu in British Columbia.
The market value for Silkie breeders
[16] Under subsection 51(2) of the Health of Animals Act, the amount of compensation which the Minister may order be paid from the consolidated revenue fund to the owner of an animal that is destroyed under the Act is the market value that the animal would have had at the time of its destruction, subject to any maximum amount referred to in subsection 51(3).
[17] The parties agree that Silkie breeders are not traded on the open market. Accordingly, there is no established market price for Silkie breeders between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Rather, Silkie breeders are kept by the breeder for his or her use.
[18] The parties agree that the replacement cost or cost of production for the Silkie breeders is the proper method for determining their "market value".
[19] As other assessors have decided under the Health of Animals Act, when there is no commercial market available to establish value by use of comparables, then the depreciated replacement value method is reasonable for estimating the market value of an animal that is destroyed. See Ferme Avicole Héva Inc. v. Canada(Minister of Agriculture) (1998), 203 F.T.R. 218 per Tremblay-Lamer J., Assessor, at paragraphs 31 and 32.
Background Evidence
[20] The evidence of the three witnesses for the appellant with respect to the market value of the Silkie breeders destroyed in May 2004 was thorough and credible. The appellant is the largest producer of Silkies in North America. The appellant's overall poultry business in 2005 had approximate gross revenues of $17 million. It is clear to the Assessor that the appellant knows the Silkie business.
[21] When the appellant's Silkie population was to be eliminated because of AI, the appellant negotiated with CFIA officials from April 2004 to July 2004 with respect to both the proposed destruction and the market value of the Silkie breeders. The appellant testified that he and his general manager, Mr. Aizadeh, attended "dozens" of meetings with CFIA officials and produced hundreds of pages of documents demonstrating the cost of producing the Silkie breeders. CFIA agreed that the Silkie breeders were a specialty bird and that the unique circumstances of specialty birds would be taken into account in assessing their market value. Meanwhile, the appellant made inquires around the world to source replacement Silkie breeders without success. The appellant testified that the amount offered in October 2004 by the CFIA in compensation for the Silkie breeders was an "insult", and ignored the replacement cost of the Silkie breeders. Instead, CFIA used a table of values prepared by Agriculture Canada's Ms. Kirsti Bergmeier with respect to the value of the Silkie breeders. This table of values was prepared before the appellant had produced any information regarding the replacement costs of the Silkie breeders. Ms. Bergmeier prepared the table of values without knowing the cost of replacing a Silkie breeder chick.
Conclusion from the evidence
[22] The Assessor concludes, from the evidence of the four witnesses for the respondent, and the evidence of the three witnesses for the appellant, that:
1. The amount of compensation paid by the respondent for the Silkie breeders was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding by the respondent with respect to the market value of Silkie breeders. The respondent failed to understand that breeding stock, compared with Silkie birds raised for meat consumption, are much more valuable. Comparing breeding stock with meat stock is like comparing apples with oranges;
2. The market values paid by the respondent ignored the detailed cost of production information prepared by the appellant's general manager, and provided to CIFA during the negotiations;
3. The Assessor is satisfied that the respondent erred in assessing the market value of the Silkie breeder stock versus the meat stock. The witnesses for the appellant were credible and experienced. The witnesses for the respondent did not provide any credible evidence regarding the proper market value of the Silkie breeders;
4. The amount of compensation for the Silkie breeders was based on a table of values prepared by Ms. Bergmeier, a new employee of Agriculture Canada in Ottawa who did a general assessment of the value of the birds destroyed in the Fraser Valley relying on information obtained from the internet. This information was for Silkie meat stock birds, and not for breeding stock birds. Ms. Bergmeier did not have direct communication with persons familiar with growing Silkie breeders, and did not have background knowledge about the poultry industry;
5. The appellant provided detailed information to Mr. Richard Armstrong, the Agriculture Canada employee sent from Ottawa to assess the market value of the poultry destroyed.
Mr. Armstrong did not use this information. He adopted the table of values prepared by Ms. Bergmeier without reference to the appellant's cost of production information provided at the "dozens" of meetings with CFIA officials, and contained in the "hundreds of pages" of documents;
6. The Assessor takes from the evidence that the respondent produced the table of values for the purpose of conducting a general economic impact assessment, and this table of values was not adequate to serve as the market value to be used by the Minister for compensating owners of animals destroyed, without regard to the specific information provided by the owners;
7. Agriculture Canada did recognize for other types of poultry that breeding stock birds are more valuable than birds grown for meat. Special regulations were enacted to set the value of duck breeders at over $70 and goose breeders at over $140;
8. The appellant did not challenge the amount of compensation paid by the respondent for the appellant's Silkie meat birds, which the appellant calls its "grow-out" stock. However, the appellant made clear for the Assessor that grow-out birds cannot be used as breeders, and that the respondent confused the two types of birds notwithstanding the extensive effort undertaken by the appellant to demonstrate this fact to the respondent; and
9. Mr. Vafa Aizadeh, the general manager of the poultry division for the appellant, impressed the Assessor. He was thorough, clear and credible. He provided information to the Assessor which he had provided in detail to CFIA officials in May 2004. The detailed evidence of the cost of producing, and therefore the cost of replacing the destroyed Silkie breeders, was set out in evidence before the Assessor. This evidence is as follows for Barns 9, 65 and 66:
(a) The evidence shows that the appellant's Silkie breeder chick cost of production at the material time was $42.85. Since the laying peak of the breeders is between 21 and 33 weeks, the Silkie breeders destroyed in Barn 9, which were 36 weeks old, and past their laying peak, was depreciated to $27.50. The value of the Silkie breeder declines after the bird has passed its laying peak;
(b) The value of the Silkie breeders in Barn 65, which were 18 weeks old, and which have incurred costs from the day they were born until 18 weeks, was $49.65. The value of the bird increases each week to cover the cost of feeding the bird and caring for the bird as it reaches its laying peak periods; and
(c) The value of the Silkie breeders in Barn 66, which were 16 weeks old, was $47.95.
[23] The respondent paid the appellant compensation for these Silkie breeders in amounts which varied from $10.81 to $13.57 per bird.
The proper classification of Silkie breeders - "chicken" or "game bird"?
[24] The Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations provide that there are maximum amounts under the law which can be paid for animals destroyed under the Health of Animals Act. The maximum amount is $30.00 unless that animal is in the Schedule to the Act.
[25] The Schedule lists under Item 10:
Chicken (Gallus gallus)
and sets a maximum value of $33.
[26] The Schedule lists under Item 123:
Pheasants, guinea fowl and other members of the galliformes order (except those referred to in items 10 and 11)
and sets a maximum value of $500 per bird.
[27] The evidence on the proper classification of Silkies from the appellant's witnesses was that Silkies are "game birds", and not "chickens". Moreover, the appellant submits that the CFIA officials acknowledged that Silkies were to be classified as "game birds" under Item 123 of the Schedule. The expert evidence of Dr. Cheng was that Silkies are in the Gallus gallus family, i.e. the chicken family. This evidence was documented. Dr. Cheng was an independent expert. His evidence was unequivocal. The Silkie is a member of the Gallus gallus species, which is a chicken. It is also a member of the larger "order" known as "galliformes", of which chickens, or "Gallus gallus" are one species.
[28] Item 123 of Schedule 1 expressly provides that members of the galliformes order are to be classified under Item 123 except those referred to in Items 10 (and 11). Item 10 refers to "Chickens (Gallus gallus)".
[29] Any statement by a CFIA official to the contrary, while it may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule since it is an admission against interest, does not override the law or have the force of law. An interpretation by a government official cannot estop the Crown from applying and enforcing the law as it is written.
[30] The Assessor concludes:
1. based upon the expert evidence, the Silkie breeders are "chickens"; and
2. while the Silkie is also a game bird, the Regulations expressly exclude chickens from being classified as game birds under Item 123 of the Schedule.
[31] For these reasons, the Assessor is satisfied that Silkies are properly classified under Item 10 of Schedule 1 as chickens for the purpose of the Regulations and therefore have a maximum value of $33 per bird.
Assessment of market value based on the evidence
[32] Based on the evidence, I assess the market value under the Act and Regulations as follows:
| Barn ID |
Quantity |
Category |
Sex |
Age |
Replacement cost based on the evidence |
Total market value subject to $33 maximum |
| 9 |
8,755 |
Silkie Breeder
|
F |
36 wks |
$27.50 |
$240,762.50 |
|
|
1,000 |
Silkie Breeder
|
M |
36 wks |
$27.50 |
$27,500.00 |
| 65 |
12,376 |
Silkie Breeder
|
F |
18 wks |
$49.65* |
$408,408.00 |
|
|
1,492 |
Silkie Breeder
|
M |
18 wks |
$49.65* |
$49,236.00 |
| 66 |
12,122 |
Silkie Breeder
|
F |
16 wks |
$47.95* |
$400,026.00 |
|
|
1,351 |
Silkie Breeder
|
M |
16 wks |
$47.95* |
$44,583.00 |
| Totals |
37,096 |
|
|
|
|
$1,170,515.50 |
* Subject to $33 maximum in the Regulations
Therefore the total market value for the appellant's Silkie breeders destroyed by the respondent in May 2004 was $1,170,515.50, subject to the $33 maximum per bird in the Regulations. The appellant received $439,719.36. Accordingly, the respondent's market value assessment was $730,796.14 short, and the appellant is owed this amount.
Interest
[33] The appellant was paid in August 2004 and seeks interest at the rate of 5% per annum. Upon reviewing the powers of the assessor under section 57 of the Health of Animals Act, I conclude that the assessor does not have the power to award interest. It is incumbent upon the appellant to file the appeal within three months, and then take the steps necessary to ensure that the appeal is heard in a timely fashion. In this case, the application for a time and place for hearing was only filed on February 8, 2006. The reason for the delay is not explained, and may possibly be because the appellant did not take the steps necessary to have an expeditious hearing of the appeal.
Costs
[34] Under subsection 57(2) of the Health of Animals Act, legal costs may be awarded to and against the Minister in an appeal. In this case, the appellant is entitled to his legal costs which I will assess under the Tariff of Counsel Fees for the Federal Court. I will use the upper end of Column III. On this basis, I find that the legal costs under the Tariff are $4,680 which will be awarded to the plaintiff as a fixed lump sum.
ASSESSMENT
THE ASSESSOR HEREBY ORDERS THAT:
- This appeal from the decision of the respondent that the appellant be compensated $439,719.36 for his Silkie breeders is allowed;
- The proper market value under the Act and Regulations of the appellant's Silkie breeders was $1,170,515.50, not $439,719.36 as determined by the Minister and paid to the appellant;
- The respondent shall pay the appellant the difference, which is $730,796.14; and
- The respondent shall pay the appellant his legal costs in the amount of $4,680.
"Michael A. Kelen"
Deputy Assessor
Appendix "A"
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
1. Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21
| DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT Disposal of affected or contaminated animals and things
48. (1) The Minister may dispose of an animal or thing, or require its owner or any person having the possession, care or control of it to dispose of it, where the animal or thing
(a) is, or is suspected of being, affected or contaminated by a disease or toxic substance;
(b) has been in contact with or in close proximity to another animal or thing that was, or is suspected of having been, affected or contaminated by a disease or toxic substance at the time of contact or close proximity; or
(c) is, or is suspected of being, a vector, the causative agent of a disease or a toxic substance. [...]
COMPENSATION Compensation to owners of animals
51. (1) The Minister may order compensation to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the owner of an animal that is
(a) destroyed under this Act or is required by an inspector or officer to be destroyed under this Act and dies after the requirement is imposed but before being destroyed;
(b) injured in the course of being tested, treated or identified under this Act by an inspector or officer and dies, or is required to be destroyed, as a result of the injury; or
(c) reserved for experimentation under paragraph 13(2)(a).
Amount of compensation
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the amount of compensation shall be
(a) the market value, as determined by the Minister, that the animal would have had at the time of its evaluation by the Minister if it had not been required to be destroyed
minus
(b) the value of its carcass, as determined by the Minister.
Maximum value
(3) The value mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) shall not exceed any maximum amount established with respect to the animal by or under the regulations.
Additional compensation
(4) In addition to the amount calculated under subsection (2), compensation may include such costs related to the disposal of the animal as are permitted by the regulations.
[...]
Regulations
55. The Minister may make regulations
(a) respecting the method of calculating the market value of animals for which the Minister considers there is no readily available market;
(b) establishing maximum amounts, or the manner of calculating maximum amounts, for the purpose of subsection 51(3) or section 52; and
(c) permitting compensation for any costs related to the disposal of animals and things and for determining the amounts of the compensable costs, including prescribing maximum amounts.
Appeal
56. (1) A person who claims compensation and is dissatisfied with the Minister's disposition of the claim may bring an appeal to the Assessor, but the only grounds of appeal are that the failure to award compensation was unreasonable or that the amount awarded was unreasonable. [...]
Powers of Assessor
57. (1) On hearing an appeal, the Assessor may confirm or vary the Minister's disposition of the claim or refer the matter back to the Minister for such further action as the Assessor may direct.
Costs
(2) Costs may be awarded to or against the Minister in an appeal. |
ISPOSITION ET TRAITEMENT Mesures de disposition
48. (1) Le ministre peut prendre toute mesure de disposition, notamment de destruction, - ou ordonner à leur propriétaire, ou à la personne qui en a la possession, la responsabilité ou la charge des soins, de le faire - à l'égard des animaux ou choses qui:
a) soit sont contaminés par une maladie ou une substance toxique, ou soupçonnés de l'être;
b) soit ont été en contact avec des animaux ou choses de la catégorie visée à l'alinéa a) ou se sont trouvés dans leur voisinage immédiat;
c) soit sont des substances toxiques, des vecteurs ou des agents causant des maladies, ou sont soupçonnés d'en être. [...]
INDEMNISATION Indemnisation: animal
51. (1) Le ministre peut ordonner le versement, sur le Trésor, d'une indemnité au propriétaire de l'animal:
a) soit détruit au titre de la présente loi, soit dont la destruction a été ordonnée par l'inspecteur ou l'agent d'exécution mais mort avant celle-ci;
b) blessé au cours d'un examen ou d'une séance de traitement ou d'identification effectués, au même titre, par un inspecteur ou un agent d'exécution et mort ou détruit en raison de cette blessure;
c) affecté à des expériences au titre du paragraphe 13(2).
Montant de l'indemnité
(2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) et (4), l'indemnité payable est égale à la valeur marchande, selon l'évaluation du ministre, que l'animal aurait eue au moment de l'évaluation si sa destruction n'avait pas été ordonnée, déduction faite de la valeur de son cadavre.
Plafond
(3) La valeur marchande ne peut dépasser le maximum réglementaire correspondant à l'animal en cause.
Indemnité supplémentaire
(4) L'indemnisation s'étend en outre, lorsque les règlements le prévoient, aux frais de disposition, y compris de destruction.
[...]
Règlements
55. Le ministre peut, par règlement:
a) régir le mode de calcul de la valeur marchande des animaux difficilement commercialisables selon lui;
b) fixer les plafonds des valeurs marchandes des animaux ou des choses ou leur mode de calcul;
c) autoriser l'indemnisation pour frais de disposition - notamment par destruction - d'animaux ou de choses et fixer soit le montant de celle-ci ainsi que le plafond, soit le mode de leur détermination.
Appel
56. (1) Il peut être interjeté appel devant l'évaluateur soit pour refus injustifié d'indemnisation, soit pour insuffisance de l'indemnité accordée. [...]
Pouvoirs de l'évaluateur
57. (1) L'évaluateur qui entend l'appel peut confirmer ou modifier la décision du ministre ou renvoyer l'affaire à celui-ci pour qu'il y soit donné suite de la manière que lui-même précise.
Frais
(2) Les frais peuvent être accordés au ministre ou mis à sa charge.
|
2. Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations, SOR/2000-233
| MAXIMUM AMOUNTS
2. For the purpose of subsection 51(3) of the Act, the amount that is established as the maximum amount with respect to an animal that is destroyed or required to be destroyed under subsection 48(1) of the Act is
(a) if the animal is set out or included in column 1 of an item of the schedule, the amount set out in column 3 of that item; and
(b) in any other case, $30.
[...]
SCHEDULE (Section 2)
Column 1 - Column 2 - Column 3 Item - Animal - Family - Maximum Amount ($)
[...]
10. Chicken (Gallus gallus) - Phasianidae - $33 11. Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) - Meleagridae $50
[...]
123. Pheasants, guinea fowl and other members of the galliformes order (except those referred to in items 10 and 11) - $500 |
PLAFOND DE LA VALEUR MARCHANDE
2. Pour l'application du paragraphe 51(3) de la Loi, la valeur marchande d'un animal qui est détruit ou qui doit l'être en application du paragraphe 48(1) de la Loi ne peut dépasser:
a) le montant prévu à la colonne 3 de l'annexe, pour tout animal visé à la colonne 1;
b) 30$, dans tout autre cas.
[...]
ANNEXE (article 2)
Colonne 1 - Colonne 2 - Colonne 3 Article - Animal - Famille - Montant maximal ($)
[...]
10. Poulet (Gallus gallus) - Phasianidés - $33 11. Dindon (Meleagris gallopavo) - Maleagridés $50
[...]
123. Faisan, pintade et autres galliformes (sauf ceux visés aux articles 10 et 11) - $500 |
HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGISTRAR OF APPEALS
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: P-23-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROB DONALDON v. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, AGRI-FOOD CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Abbotsford, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: June 22, 2006
AND ASSESSMENT: KELEN J., DEPUTY ASSESSOR
APPEARANCES:
| Delwen Stander
|
|
| Cindy Mah
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Stander & Company Chilliwack, B.C.
|
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |