CSN PRESS ROOM re: Next Considerations for BC Ostrich Farm following loss of Judicial Review

TWO SAMPLE NEWS ARTICLES with LINKS to additional SOURCES to follow for updates in this evolving story

Sample Article #1 Re: Bc Ostrich Farm Loses Judicial Review

191KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sample Article #2 Re: Bc Ostrich Farm Loses Judicial Review

341KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ARTICLE #1

BC OSTRICH FARM LOSES JUDICIAL REVIEW. CULL OF 400 HEALTHY OSTRICHES COULD BE IMMINENT

1st Sample Article with Links to Opportunities to become Aware of Evolving News (approx. 1330 words)

CSNews May 14, 2025                                                                                                   Contact H. Noerenberg                                                    CanadianShareableNews@proton.me

In his review of the farm’s appeal of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s December 31, 2024 depopulation order, federal court judge Hon. Justice Zinn ruled in favour of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). This was done even though the CFIA has failed to demonstrate that any of the 400 ostriches living on a remote farm near Edgewood BC posed a threat to public health. Neither Justice Zinn or CFIA are recognizing that individual birds who survive many infections over nearly three decades are so valuable that they should be kept as breeding stock. Justice Zinn’s ruling essentially upholds CFIA’s order to destroy a flock of approximately 400 ostriches. Representatives of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency claim their cull order reflects the “stamping out” policy of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). However, WOAH itself has published contradictory statements about the policy, including this one: “Control strategies should be evidence based and need to be accepted by the society. We know that massive stamping out of poultry farms might not be sufficient to contain the risk and definitely are not socially acceptable.” (This statement was made in April 2025 at a recent webinar organized by the World Organisation for Animal Health at the 22:56 mark here.)

People who support the farm have been helping guard the property 24/7, particularly after one night when an older healthy ostrich was shot at and killed from a distance by a possible lone shooter using a silencer. Many supporters of the farm have also donated money to assist the owners cover their legal costs as for them, this story is not only about a single farm. People who understand the implications of allowing unelected bureaucrats to carry out outdated, risky and objectionable policies believe that the ostriches owned by Universal Ostrich Farm Inc. represent a “line in the sand.” For many, allowing the state to kill 400 healthy animals that are not being raised as part of human food production, can open the door to further unwarranted killing of poultry and possibly other forms of livestock as well as pets under hyped up “risk mitigation” protocols. Canadians following independent and citizen journalists in May 2024 heard a chilling conversation involving Canada’s highest placed public health official, Dr. Teresa Tam hinting at possible future surprises (“there will be the odd thing, you know, the unexpected”) involving avian influenza testing not just for poultry but also cattle, swine and pets such as cats. In Dr. Tam’s view, the “animal health people” were not sufficiently concerned about the possibility of avian flu transmission to humans. So far, only one Canadian has been treated and has since recovered from a possible avian influenza infection. Any references to Canadians possibly dying from avian flu plays into fears around a possible “Lock step” scenario outlined in 2010 by members of the Rockefeller Foundation, an organization that describes itself as “a philanthropic foundation that promotes the well-being of humanity”. In 2010, they mapped out a number of fictional futuristic scenarios, including this one: “In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.”

Rockefeller Foundation funds have previously supported “improving vaccine uptake by building the capacity of health cadres and local leaders to disseminate accurate and transparent information about the COVID-19 vaccine” as well as “scaling up, institutionalizing and building capacity for social behavioral insight activities for the purpose of driving demand for vaccine uptake”

Supporters of the Ostrich farm are aware of the risk posed by these ostriches to the global pharmaceutical industry. Thus far, few, if any mainstream journalists have reported on the ability of antibodies produced in ostrich eggs to protect animals and humans from infectious viruses including SARS, Ebola and avian influenza. The antibodies provided by the Universal Ostrich Farm Inc. have been involved in research projects in Japan, the USA and Canada. Thus far, commercially available products based on specialized antibodies have provided an alternative to pharmaceutical products.

Supporters, such as US morning show host Jim Kerr, share the concern expressed by Kerr at the end of this video: “Unless you want the entire world to be a place where farmers aren’t allowed to do their thing, and you’re going to be eating lab grown meat by pre-approved GMO companies, you need to do something about this. … Now we have to protect ourselves and our farmers against what looks like imminent violence.”

To follow the developments at Universal Ostrich Farm Inc. see:

• www.facebook.com/search/top?q=jim%20kerr —> additional videos posted by Jim Kerr including this plea for help by farm owner Karen Espersen

• rumble.com/c/c-7622529 —> video footage of CFIA agents visiting the farm 2-3 months ago

• saveourostriches.com/ —> the farm’s advocacy page

• preventgenocide2030.org/save-our-ostriches/ —> a combined US/Canada citizen action page featuring a new initiative - sending letters to CFIA agents letting them know about the consequences of their actions

• doortofreedom.org/important-additional-facts-about-bird-flu-new-slides-i-have-put-together-to-help-guide-policy/ —> a slide presentation on avian flu being used as a potential bioweapon, posted by anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass

• merylnass.substack.com/p/which-arbitrary-path-should-be-followed —> the original February 2025 post by Dr. Nass about the Universal Ostrich Farm in which she included a number of common sense policy suggestions that could be implemented by the the CFIA, as well as by their international counterparts.

• Look up “ostrich” here: jamesroguski.substack.com/ —> for a critical view of how the CFIA’s policy echos the “ONE HEALTH” model being promoted within World Health Organization documents and other writings by American WHO critic James Roguski.

Additionally, a number of influential scientific podcasters, news analysts or media celebrities who have interviewed representatives of the Universal Ostrich Farm, will likely soon be posting updates. These include US epidemiologist Dr. Nicolas Hulscher, Canadian expat lawyer Viva Frei living in the USA, Canadian holistic nutritionist Brett Hawes, former CBC investigative reporter and host of The Fifth Estate Trish Wood, and others. See also the creative work being done by Alberta investigative citizen journalist Connie Shields. In her characteristic combination of humour, sarcasm and step by step explanatory text, she has educated Canadians about the behind the scenes work of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the warning of a coming engineered Avian Flu pandemic by former Director of the the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Robert Redfield, the fact that both the ostrich farm and the landfill at which CFIA plans to have the murdered ostriches buried in deep pits, are on the ancestral land of Sinixt Nation. All this plus an explanation of the nature of the World Health Organization’s ONE HEALTH initiative and a number of suggested action items are packed into a single post with many more posts to be found using the search term “ostrich” at unlockalberta@substack.com. A number of posts, such as this one, also include song texts written by Connie Shields.

Some supporters of the farm reference the animal rights organization PETA which has posted a number of stories of mistreatment of ostriches. Supporters are reaching out to PETA since they consider the impending individual shooting of highly intelligent, nervous and strong animals to be an act of cruelty. They are also disgusted at the idea of 120,000 pounds of healthy flesh buried and decaying in a dumpsite in order to “protect” human health while effectively snuffing out the potential for alternative effective and protective natural health products.

To contact the Universal Ostrich farm: saveourostriches@gmail.com.

ARTICLE #2

BC OSTRICH FARM LOSES JUDICIAL REVIEW. CULL OF 400 HEALTHY OSTRICHES COULD BE IMMINENT

Second Sample Article:

Analysis of Justice Zinn’s Ruling, a Reflection of the Power of Administrative Law in Canada (approximately 5000 words)

CSNews                                                                                                                                May 15, 2025                                                                                                                        Contact Hannah Noerenberg                                                                   CanadianShareableNews@proton.me

The owners of the remote family-run Universal Ostrich Farm Inc. east of Vernon BC were informed on May 13, 2025 that federal court judge Hon. Justice Zinn ruled in favour of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) upholding its order to destroy a flock of 400 ostriches. The farm’s owners had challenged the December 31, 2024 cull order which was issued by the CFIA in keeping with its “stamping out” policy. Instead of isolating and treating only animals that fall ill, the policy demands the destruction of entire flocks. The second challenge revolved around CFIA’S decision to deny the owners an exemption despite the ostriches having “rare and valuable genetics.” In his ruling, Justice Zinn clearly states that “the merits of policy decisions are strictly off limits in a reasonableness review” (para 124) and as such did not consider evidence supplied to attack or defend the policy under which the CFIA placed its depopulation order.

Possible Implications of this Case

Prior to the May 13 decision, the farm’s owners explained to their supporters that the ostriches have not been used for food production, and technically fall outside of the definition of “poultry”. They also explained that the questions being asked on the CFIA’s “rare genetics” exemption request for did not apply to the farm’s operation. The farm’s owners and their supporters believe that if the outdated “Stamping Out” policy can be used on the ostriches by the CFIA purportedly as a tool prioritizing an unrealistic “avian flu free” trade status for Canada, there is nothing to prevent the CFIA from using suspicions of avian flu as a rationale for widespread culling of any kind of farm or domestic animals in the future.

Justice Zinn points out that courts are not positioned to rule on scientific matters and that when it comes to administrative decisions, judges must only rule on the “reasonableness” of decisions made given information available to administrative bodies at the time. Justice Zinn stated that “Parliament has authorized the CFIA to act decisively making swift decisions with far-reaching consequences, often under conditions of scientific uncertainty.” (para 12.) “Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker.” (para 67) (Also para 79.) Additionally, Justice Zinn explains that “The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that even a mere suspicion of exposure, without confirmed contamination, is sufficient to justify issuing a Notice to Dispose under the Act…Within this framework, the discretion focuses on two key decisions: (1) whether to order destruction or authorize treatment; and (2) how to carry out the chosen course of action. The statute leaves no room for a third “wait-and-see” approach.” (para 83)

Lack of Balance in this Case

While briefly referencing the antibody research done on the farm, Justice Zinn appears to downplay the information shared by the farm’s owners with CFIA about the proven treatment success shown by antibodies produced by the farm’s ostriches against COVID-19 and the potential for commercially available antibody protection against avian flu. Justice Zinn refers to telephone and email communication between the farm and CFIA, yet his review makes little reference to how the ostrich farm can contribute to the reduction of avian influenza within the Canadian poultry industry, information that the CFIA also appears to have downplayed prior to issuing the cull order.

During the judicial review, instead of both parties receiving the promised 50/50 balance of available time, the farm’s legal team led by Lee Turner was granted only roughly 25% of the time available. This meant needing to leave out crucial arguments and facts of the case with little notice.

Similarly, Justice Zinn found the affidavit submitted by Dr. Cathy Furness, Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer of the CFIA, to be a “factual narrative explaining what the CFIA understands and considers in its decision-making” and gave it more weight than the expert reports submitted in support of the Universal Ostrich Farm. Justice Zinn indicated that Dr. Furness relies on “facts that one would expect a Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer to possess through her official position, responsibilities, and direct involvement in Canada’s HPAI response… information gained through knowledge, observation, and experience in the ordinary course of one’s position…Her statements about the absence of effective treatments for HPAI in birds represent factual declarations about available options within CFIA’s policy framework, not scientific opinions on treatment efficacy. It is particularly telling that, when making these statements, she cites and attaches supporting documentation as exhibits, which include fact sheets and publications from authorities such as the Public Health Agency of Canada and the World Health Organization. In other words, Dr. Furness is recounting and relaying information from these established sources, rather than communicating her opinions on scientific matters.” (para 144, see also 145)

This ruling indicates that appointees to government positions are expected to reference only static government documentation and not to keep an eye on evolving research, such as that referenced by the expert witnesses who contributed to the case to oppose the cull order. In other words, CFIA would be justified in NOT considering “that the H5N1 detected at the Applicant’s farm behaved phenotypically like a low-pathogenic strain” as indicated by “the low mortality of adult birds, short-lived viral shedding, and the flock’s likely attainment of immunity to the virus by mid-January”. This was explained by Dr. Steven Pelech, a UBC professor and biochemist with years of training and experience in immunology and virology. Dr. Byram Bridle, immunologist at the University of Guelph, recommended that with a novel genotype, CFIA should first perform a fresh risk assessment and consider vaccination or natural-immunity studies before issuing a cull order given that “detecting an H5 gene by RRT-PCR is not, without full pathotyping, proof of a highly pathogenic virus.” Former senior epidemiologist and manager at the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Jeff Wilson, “frames CFIA actions in adopting and implementing the Stamping-Out Policy as a policy failure when benchmarked against proper pandemic-response principles.” And yet, only the statements by Dr. Cathy Furness were considered by Justice Zinn as a “factual narrative” worth considering. Justice Zinn also referenced CFIA veterinary epidemiologist Dr. Shannon French and her claim that “neither vaccination nor a “burn-out” strategy has gained WOAH endorsement for commercial poultry”.

WOAH Stamping Out the “Stamping Out” Policy

Unbeknownst to Justice Zinn, and possibly also to Dr. Shannon French, already in 2023, the World Organization for Animal Health was distancing itself from the “stamping out” policy that lies at the root of the Universal Ostrich cull order. “The change of epidemiology of the disease these past two years has undermined the use of stamping-out as a main control measure. As we are looking for more sustainable production practices, we must explore collectively alternative methods of disease control, to prevent and mitigate the disease, and consequently, avoid destroying so many animals when food security is becoming a critical issue for many. These strategic challenges will be extensively discussed during the upcoming [2023] Animal Health Forum on Avian Influenza. In particular, the topics of surveillance, disease control strategies, ways to ensure safe and fair international trade of poultry and poultry products and regional and global coordination will be debated.” Yet in 2024, other branches of the WOAH were still prioritizing an “avian flu free status” for the purpose of international trade over the concern expressed the year prior around the need to change policies. On April 10, 2025, at the 23 minute mark of a webinar entitled Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (2024–2033) hosted by the World Organization for Animal Health, the Head of Science of the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) Dr. Gregorio Torres references the need to ensure strategies used by member agencies are socially acceptable: “Control strategies should be evidence based and need to be accepted by the society. We know that massive stamping out of poultry farms might not be sufficient to contain the risk and definitely are not socially acceptable.” (At the 22:56 mark here.)

The Need to Break the Information Barrier

There appears to be a massive wall between the information circulated within the “official” human and animal health agencies such as those providing the training courses offered via the Animal Health Canada Emergency Management (AHEM) project and the innovative and evolving science. CFIA staff may learn a “comprehensive, multi-species plan that has been jointly developed by industry and government” without encountering news around other ways to do things, ways that do NOT involve needless culls.

It seems to be clearly beyond the scope of Justice Zinn’s review to make recommendations as to how in the future, those agencies to whom Parliamentarians entrust the administration of Canadian government operations, should reorganize their processes to ensure decisions are made on the latest, most verifiable evidence, instead of on outdated, static policy documents that do not even link to the scientific references upon which they are based. At the very least, Justice Zinn could have familiarized himself with as much background information as possible to note that CFIA officials were restricting themselves to a very narrow, decontextualized slice of information, something uncalled for in the world of ethical professionals.

In attempting to limit himself to the narrow confines of information the CFIA purportedly had on hand at the time of the cull order, Justice Zinn neglected to make any reference to the role played by “gain of function” biological weapons research, particularly on avian influenza. This information should surely have been within the purview of all involved in policy making around pathogens with pandemic potential. For example, in 2011, Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier genetically engineered H5N1 in a lab to transmit via respiratory droplets between mammals. And in November 2024, CFIA officials should have been aware of the study “Proximal Origin of Epidemic Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b and Spread by Migratory Waterfowl” which reports how a recent clade of avian influenza potentially originates from the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia, and the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In fact, given their close ties to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should well be aware of the fact that between 1975 and 2016, 71 instances of pathogens of pandemic potential have arisen from laboratory based bioweapons research. And given their close ties to Policy Horizons Canada, CFIA staff MUST be aware of the “Agricultural and Natural Manufacturing Technologies” already being envisioned for Canada now and into the future. Likewise top CFIA officials must already have known about the connections enjoyed by the only farm to be granted an exemption based on the ‘“rare and valuable genetics” clause of CFIA policy. Interestingly this includes ties to the Hendrix Genetics umbrella, a Dutch organization purportedly involved in genetic manipulation and “cutting-edge R&D capabilities… committed to delivering unmatched value and innovation to the pork value chain.”

Lack of Multi-Stakeholder Inclusion

Similarly, there has been a flood of documentation coming from both the World Health Organization and the World Organization of Animal Health promoting the so-called “One Health” approach, which is optimistically defined by the WHO as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.” As outlined in the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (2024–2033), published jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Organization for Animal Health, policy makers advocating the so-called “One Health” approach are supposed to promote “multistakeholder inclusion and the development of public-private partnerships”. As well, “the use of both established and innovative means of protecting poultry value chains to reduce the burden of infections and losses” is to be encouraged. (See page vi here.)

Clearly, by issuing the ostrich cull order, instead of seeking out a partnership with Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. for innovative solutions to the problem of avian influenza, Canadian CFIA agents are not meeting the expectations outlined in this strategic documentation.

Unaware of these international expectations for agricultural inspectors, Justice Zinn appears unable to identify where CFIA staff appear unwilling to improve the poultry value chain, to find ways to increase animal resistance to disease and to work with multiple partners and stakeholders (not just companies like Hendrix Genetics which are backed with endless financial capital through investors like Paine Schwartz Partners ). Coming from city desk jobs to the farm wearing Hazmat suits, CFIA inspectors appear to have little comprehension of the value built through generations of careful selective breeding and regular encounters with likely pathogens… both of which combined have lead to the premium value potential of ostrich antibodies.

Lack of Appreciation for Innovation

It is not at all evident from the documentation referenced in the May 13 ruling that either the CFAI officials or Justice Zinn appreciate the innovative value represented by the ostrich antibodies as referenced in this commercial flyer: www.ostrigen.com/. The ‘once in a lifetime’ encounter between the lead Japanese antibody research scientist and the remote Edgewood BC Ostrich farm points to the uniqueness of this flock of birds. There currently are no other ostrich farms in Canada capable of producing antibodies of the quality and quantity shown by the Edgewood birds, making the Universal Ostrich farm THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE referenced by Justice Zinn in paragraph 67 in which he stated: “Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker.” Clearly this is a place TO INTERFERE with the short sighted views of CFIA bureaucrats who have a preconceived “vaccines alone will fix everything” mindset and could not recognize a what a gift the Edgewood Ostriches provide for humanity.

Lack of Critical Review

The words of Justice Zinn clearly show his deference to the members of the administrative branch of government: “The Stamping-Out Policy represents a legitimate policy-level exercise of this discretion, grounded in a science-informed framework that mandates swift depopulation following laboratory confirmation of H5 avian influenza. The Policy is further operationalized by measures aimed at halting viral amplification, permitting sanitization of affected premises, and facilitating the rapid restoration of disease-free status. Additionally, the CFIA complements these measures by providing operators with post-depopulation biosecurity guidance tailored to minimize future infection risks, further promoting the Act’s proactive approach to disease control.”

Justice Zinn claims that the stamping out policy is “science informed” yet science is an iterative process, whereby yesterday’s observations and hypotheses may well need to revised by new observations and data gleaned tomorrow. He seems to trust in “laboratory confirmation” of illness without noting CFIA’s unwillingness to let the farm seek additional testing beyond the CFIA PCR testing of two deceased birds. Justice Zinn references “measures” aimed at halting viral amplification without referencing the previous successes of the ostrich antibody research and its potential applications for avian flu. To allow poultry and wild birds to inhale ostrich produced avian flu antibodies while they feed is much more proactive than culling entire flocks, including healthy animals that show immunity to a pathogen. And Justice Zinn references the claim that CFIA will provide farmers with instructions as to how to stay avian flu free once all the ostriches have been shot and buried. (Does he truly believe the family will re-invest in new ostriches given that it would take decades of breeding to replicate their current successes?)

Seeing Recurring Patterns

Critics of Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill, the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations, the “Earth Systems Council” called for by a Club of Rome and Council for the Human Future roundtable, the 2010 “Lockstep” Scenario devised by the Rockefeller Foundation explained here and a number of other similar global health governance documents, including some produced by the federal government’s Policy Horizons initiative, see a disturbing pattern emerging. This involves using questionable science (like high cycle PCR testing) and outdated policy documents to manufacture health or environmental crises in order to create division, and frighten and destabilize society. Repeatedly, governments are acting as the agents of massive corporations, allowing manipulated fear to drive decision making ostensibly to “protect” nature, humanity, the climate, etc. while driving up the profit margins of the corporations who stand to benefit from policies rolled out by “captured” governments. This trend has become more pronounced since the world’s largest corporate lobby group (the World Economic Forum) entered into a formal partnership with the United Nations and its subsidiaries such as the World Health Organization in 2019.

Role of Conflicts of Interest

Through the use of misleading data points, omission of key information and of the larger context, fears of not only COVID-19, but also measles and avian flu are being put before an increasingly uneasy, frightened and gullible public. Meanwhile, research journalists such as American Jon Fleetwood see a conflict of interest when the government agency which funds gain of function research on a certain virus is at the same time claiming to be developing a vaccine against that very same virus. Similarly, while the Public Health Agency of Canada is purchasing 500,000 doses of GSK’s human vaccine against avian influenza, it is currently driving fears among the population about an illness that has been infecting migratory birds for generations, and that when circulating among poultry, helps build immunity to that illness, albeit at the cost of some lives while strengthening the life-long resistance of the majority of a farm’s flock. Meanwhile it was the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Teresa Tam who was telling her provincial colleagues that the “animal health people” are not as worried about potential risks of avian influenza as she was (1:02:04) but that there is always room for the “unexpected.”

Clear Illustration of Deference to the Administrative State

The deference of the judiciary, represented by Justice Zinn, and the silence of the legislative branch (the locally elected Members of Parliament) to the “authority” of “government experts”, i.e. government employees within the executive/administrative branch of government, who are tasked with carrying out the details involved in each the laws passed through Parliament, has been pointed out by Ontario law professor Bruce Pardy. In his May 2024 essay entitled, Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State Dr. Pardy writes:

“In Canada, the separation of powers has become a mirage. In its place, the king has returned to haunt us, albeit in a different form. What was once the monarch has become the administrative state, the modern Leviathan. It consists of every part of government that is neither legislature nor court: cabinets, departments, ministries, agencies, public health officials, boards, commissions, tribunals, regulators, law enforcement, inspectors and more.

These public bodies control our lives in every conceivable way. They supervise our speech, employment, bank accounts and media. They indoctrinate our children. They locked us down and directed our personal medical decisions. They control the money supply, the interest rate and the terms of credit. They track, direct, incentivize, censor, punish, redistribute, subsidize, tax, license and inspect. Their control over our lives would make the kings of old blush.

Legislatures and courts made it this way. Together, they have returned power to the executive, now occupied not by the king but by a permanent managerial bureaucracy, or if you like, the “deep state”….

Instead of enacting rules, legislatures delegate authority to the administration to make the rules: regulations, policies, guidelines, orders and decisions of all kinds. Courts, instead of keeping agencies within their powers, defer to their expertise.

More and more, courts allow public authorities to do as they think best in the “public interest”, as long as their vision of public interest reflects “progressive” sensibilities. Courts generally require these administrative agencies to apply the law not correctly but only “reasonably”. According to the Supreme Court, government agencies can infringe Charter rights “proportionately” to the statutory objectives they are attempting to achieve.

Instead of the rule of law, we now have what has become the Unholy Trinity of the Administrative State. Delegation from the legislature and deference from the courts produces discretion for the administration to decide the public good.”

Justice Zinn’s deference to the administrative experts at PHAC is clearly illustrated by statements such as the one in Paragraph 6 of his ruling: “When Parliament leaves technical or scientific assessments to specialized administrative bodies, it signals that those bodies, not the courts, are best positioned to make judgments on complex, expertise-driven matters. Indeed, Canadian administrative law explicitly warns that courts must not resolve scientific disputes or substitute their own views for those of specialized decision-makers authorized by Parliament to handle such issues: Vavilov at para 93. Judges are experts in law, not in public health, virology, epidemiology, or veterinary medicine. This case undeniably has a strong technical flavour. Both parties have submitted expert affidavits supported by scientific literature. The role of this Court is not to conduct afresh its own studies of that material and decide which science is correct, but to determine whether the CFIA’s decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair based on the record before it.”

The Need for Flexible National Strategies

In his address to participants of the April 2025 webinar to mark the launch of the World Organization for Animal Health Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (2024–2033) WOAH Head of Science Dr. Gregorio Torres referred to the need for social acceptance of WOAH pathogen control mechanisms. At the 22:56 mark, he singled out animal culling as particularly socially objectionable here.

At the 23 minute mark, Torres also discussed the need for flexible national strategies that may differ from context to context, saying “their strategy needs to be based on the current evidence and also tailored to the real and specific needs of that country but importantly countries that effectively use vaccination according to international standard they should not be penalized by unjustified trade policies”. In other words, this WOAH Head of Science could be possibly be persuaded that within the Canadian context there IS space for innovation, opening the door to possibly consider ostrich antibody use as a uniquely Canadian form of “vaccine” without any trade repercussions for Canada.

This is followed by a request to discuss how to promote intersectoral collaboration. Dr. Torres stated: “our risk management require collaboration and coordinating effort from all public and private stakeholders. We need to engage the governments we need to engage the industry, also the civil society to ensure that there is a unified approach in the prevention and control of the disease.”

The request by a leading international public health official to ensure that countries leave space for consideration not only for industry but also of members of civil society to engage in discussion about disease prevention and control alongside of industry is a highly welcome one.

It has now been over four months since the CFIA issued the order to have the entire flock destroyed on the basis of what was reported as positive PCR test results on two of the deceased birds. The family does not dispute that 69 ostriches died from an illness, likely from pseudomonas, an illness that made the rounds on the farm in 2022 and that like avian flu, could have been spread by wild geese and ducks that fly from farm to farm. Speaking for the farm’s owners, Katie Pasitney, explained that the only testing done by the CFIA was via swabs on two deceased birds that had been dead for 2 days. No other ill or recovered birds were tested, no tissue samples were taken and the owners were prevented by the CFIA under threat of fines from having independent testing done. The owners are aware of many flaws around the use of PCR testing. For example, at elevated test cycle counts, a high number of false positive results can be expected.

Nevertheless, in Paragraphs 7 & 8, Justice Zinn stated: “A reviewing court must assess administrative decisions based exclusively on the information available to the decision-makers at the time they made those decisions:…If courts conducted judicial review with information that did not exist at the time of decision-making, they would be faulting decision-makers for lacking a crystal ball. No one has the gift of foresight, so courts must avoid reviewing decisions through the lens of hindsight. Therefore, this Court cannot consider “new” evidence, such as the current health status of the ostriches, recent test results, or updated scientific developments that become available only after January 10, 2025, the date of the Agency’s last decision.”

The CFIA has the statutory authority granted by the Act and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, SC 1997, c 6. While commonly associated with the regulation of food safety and quality in Canada, the Agency’s broader mandate includes preventing and controlling communicable diseases in animals and plants that threaten public health, environmental integrity, or Canada’s economic interests, including international trade in livestock and animal products.

In furtherance of this mandate, the CFIA administers the 2022 ERP, which is the latest formalization and operationalization of the Stamping-Out Policy. The Agency reports to the Minister of Health, except where the Act assigns powers, duties, or functions to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for matters unrelated to food safety. (Para 14)

Ultimately, the inquiry remains whether the decision to adopt the policy instrument is grounded in a rational, purposive interpretation of the enabling statute and respects all relevant procedural, substantive, and contextual limits. (76)

Summary

In summary, what happened with the May 13 ruling by Justice Zinn illustrates what Dr. Bruce Pardy described as “the Unholy Trinity of the Administrative State. Delegation from the legislature and deference from the courts produces discretion for the administration to decide the public good.”

This case truly illustrates the need for legislative oversight of the administrative branch. In other words, Ministers and all party committee members need to seek uncompromised (non corporate funded) expert advice to understand where and how those running our agencies such as CFIA need to revise their processes to ENSURE THAT EVOLVING SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS (such as the role that ostrich generated antibodies) ARE CONTINUOUSLY BEING MADE AVAILABLE to decision makers and writers of policies. Someone needs to note how longstanding information is being missed? censored out? purposely ignored? by those to whom we have entrusted life and death decision making powers.

Someone also needs to look critically at how conflicts of interest are driving decision making. Given that PHAC announced its decision to purchase human avian flu vaccine in February 2025, obviously considerations as to whether or not to undertake this purchase would have been ongoing prior to that point in time. Who is asking how need to justify this expense is also driving the stamping out policy? By culling high numbers of poultry, and blaming the deaths on the illness, not on the cull, news reports lacking critical balance then also drive up the fear factor, justifying the expense.

Who is providing the needed oversight to those to whom Parliament has delegated the important matters of animal health? Since when does an employer delegate work to employees without checking on the results of their work from time to time? It is clear that the CFIA employees issuing the cull order were not even open to considering other options as indicated since 2023 by the very World Organization for Animal Health to whom they attribute the need for a cull order. So the question faced by Justice Zinn in para 63: Whether the CFIA’s Stamping-Out Policy, as currently operationalized through the 2022 ERP policy document, is reasonable in law? should NOT automatically have been answered with a YES. An uninformed decision maker is not able to make reasonable decisions.

Clearly, the 400 ostriches in BC, as part of a globally unique scientific experiment pose the “exceptional circumstance” of which Justice Zinn wrote in para 67. Justice Zinn points out that he is limited to the information which CFIA officials had access to at the time they issued the cull order. The question needs to be asked, what if the cull order was issued BEFORE the CFIA had the 6 hour Zoom meeting with the farm’s owners in order to gather the information about the scientific research? If that is indeed the case, it would seem that the CFIA’s order was issued out of a fear response on their part instead of professional sober second thought and actual and complete scientific information.

In this case, the answer to the second and third questions presented to Justice Zinn Whether the Notice to Dispose was made through a fair process, unfettered, and reasonable? Whether the Exemption Denial was made through a fair process and reasonable? is clearly NO!

To contact the Universal Ostrich farm: saveourostriches@gmail.com

To find additional background information see previous related publications by Canadian Shareable News:

JANUARY 31, 2025: One Sided Reporting on the Ostrich Farm News Story canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/one-sided-reporting-on-the-ostrich

FEBRUARY 3, 2025: BC Ostrich Farm Story Threatens Pharma Profits & Opens Eyes to the Bigger Context canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/csn-press-room-bc-ostrich-farm-story

FEBRUARY 12, 2025: CFIA SEEKS CLARITY on expediting BC OSTRICH CULL canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/csn-press-room-cfia-seeks-clarity