2 total
Regulation penalizing any false statement to gain access to agricultural premises struck down as unconstitutional.
The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.
They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.
However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.
The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.
Application for judicial review dismissed; decision not to prosecute hunting contest organizers is immune from review.
The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent's alleged decision to allow coyote hunting contests to proceed without written authorization, contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not authorize the contests.
Instead, the contests proceeded without authorization, and the respondent's Enforcement Branch exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to lay charges.
The court held that this discretionary decision is immune from judicial review absent bad faith or abuse of process, which were not alleged.
