IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARMS INC.
Appellant

– and –

CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
Respondent

 
PETITION TO THE COURT

We, the undersigned Citizens and Residents of Canada, respectfully petition this Honourable Court in relation to the appeal currently before it concerning the enforcement of the Health of Animals Act by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the matter of Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. CFIA.

BACKGROUND AND CONCERNS
The CFIA exercises broad powers under the Health of Animals Act, including the authority to seize and destroy animals:

1. Without warrant
2. Without consent
3. Without appeal
4. Without judicial or independent oversight

In the present case, the CFIA ordered the destruction of ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms (UOF) based on limited PCR results from two deceased animals, while denying the farm owners:

1. Access to independent scientific testing
2. The opportunity to rebut or test CFIA evidence
3. The right to propose veterinary alternatives
4. A hearing before an independent, impartial tribunal

These actions bypassed essential legal safeguards and constitute a violation of procedural fairness and fundamental rights, particularly those enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

 
RELEVANT RIGHTS AT ISSUE
Under the Canadian Bill of Rights, the following legal protections apply:

Section 1(a): The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, and the 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 rights and obligations.

We submit that any law that permits irreversible government action—such as the destruction of private animals—without due process or a fair hearing, is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, and cannot stand as constitutionally valid.

 
THE DUTY OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
We further submit that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Arif Virani, holds a constitutional and statutory duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of Canadians, including those protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights and other foundational instruments of justice.

This dual role includes:

Reviewing and reporting on the consistency of federal legislation with protected rights under Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights;
Ensuring that governmental actions comply with the principles of natural justice, due process, and rule of law;

Intervening, when necessary, in cases that raise serious questions of procedural fairness and constitutional consistency.

Given the seriousness of the legal issues raised in this appeal—specifically the general loss of rights and procedural safeguards guaranteed to all Canadians—we respectfully ask this Honourable Court to consider inviting or permitting the intervention of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Arif Virani. Under Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Minister is required to examine every regulation and Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons to ensure consistency with the rights and freedoms set out in the Bill. Where inconsistency is found, Section 3 further provides:

“The Minister of Justice shall report to the House of Commons any such inconsistency that he considers to exist between any regulation or Bill and the provisions of this Part.”

This duty is not limited to proposed legislation; it implies a continuing obligation to respond when federal laws are applied in ways that violate the due process guarantees in Section 1(a) or the right to a fair hearing in Section 2(e). The broad loss of these rights in the present case signals a constitutional failure that affects all Canadians. Accordingly, the Minister’s intervention would not only be appropriate, but necessary, to fulfill his legal mandate to defend and report on violations of fundamental rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

 
LEGAL BASIS FOR COURT INTERVENTION
We respectfully urge this Honourable Court to recognize that:

The Health of Animals Act, as applied in this case, permits arbitrary and unconstitutional enforcement;

The CFIA’s denial of hearing, evidence rebuttal, and alternative proposals violates both procedural fairness and fundamental justice;
Such denial contravenes binding legal precedents, including:

Campbell Motors Ltd. v. Gordon, [1946] SCR 541 – Due process is required before property can be seized or destroyed.

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177 – Fundamental justice applies to all affected by government action.
R. v. S.S. (T.D.), 2003 SCC 14 – Administrative bodies must observe natural justice.

Attorney General of Canada v. Power, 2024 FC 115 – Courts may strike down rights-infringing agency action; public officials may incur personal liability for enforcing unconstitutional measures.

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121 – Government discretion must never be exercised arbitrarily or punitively; public office cannot be used to punish citizens outside the law.
 
OUR REQUEST TO THE COURT
We respectfully ask this Honourable Court to:

1. Acknowledge that the CFIA’s actions, unless rights are read into the governing statute, violate Sections 1(a) and 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights;
2. Declare that the Health of Animals Act cannot be constitutionally enforced unless interpreted in conformity with these rights;
   Support a judicial outcome that upholds due process, property rights, and the right to a fair hearing for all Canadians;
3. Recognize the growing concern that certain federal powers are being exercised under international frameworks—such as the One Health Agenda, developed by the World Health Organization and related entities—without democratic debate or rights oversight;
4. Affirm that where legislation or executive action is found to violate fundamental rights, no immunity exists for those who choose to enforce it, once such violations are known;
5. And finally, consider formally inviting or allowing the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to intervene or make submissions on the constitutional implications of this case, in light of his statutory role as legal guardian of Canadians’ rights and freedoms.
    
   CONCLUSION
   This is not merely a dispute between a farm and a government agency. It is a constitutional test of whether any Canadian may be deprived of their property, livelihood, or legal rights without fair process.

We submit that fundamental rights must come first—and that all state action must comply with the guarantees of due process and impartial adjudication, as enshrined in Canadian law.

We thank the Court for its attention to this matter and for its role in protecting the rule of law for all.