On July 3, 2012, Canadian Food Inspection Agency served by registered mail notice of violation to applicant that he had made false or misleading statement to inspector. Notice was collected by employee of applicant on July 4, 2012. Applicant filed request for review of violation before Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal on August 14, 2012, along with request for extension of time to file request for review of notice of violation. Tribunal denied request for review on ground that it had been filed beyond permitted 30 days after service of notice of violation. Applicant brought application for judicial review of tribunal’s decision. Application dismissed. Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (Can.) (“AAAMPA”), was enacted to achieve purpose of Health of Animals Act (Can.), under which applicant had been found in violation. Pursuant to s. 9(2) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (Can.), service by registered mail was deemed to be effective on tenth day after date indicated in receipt issued by post office. Thus, effective service upon applicant was July 13, 2012. Request for review was made on August 14, 2012, which was one day outside 30-day period set out in AAAMPA. Tribunal was correct that it did not have jurisdiction to deviate from timelines set out in AAAMPA.
Clare v. Canada (Attorney General) (Nov. 13, 2013, F.C.A., K. Sharlow J.A., Robert M. Mainville J.A., and David G. Near J.A., File No. A-445-12) 235 A.C.W.S. (3d) 31.