A Manitoba judge has dismissed a private prosecution against a Swan River horse exporter, finding there was reasonable doubt the company failed to meet federal animal transport requirements.
Justice Sandra Chapman ruled the exporter had a contingency plan in place for a 2022 shipment of horses to Japan and could not be held solely responsible for disruptions that occurred after the animals were transferred to air transport.
Read Also
Bushel Plus wins big at Canada’s Farm Show
Bushel Plus took the Innovation award at Canada’s Farm Show in Regina for concave technology that cuts combine changeover time from hours to minutes.
WHY IT MATTERS: The ruling sets precedent for how responsibility for animal welfare is divided during air export of livestock, with implications for exporters, regulators and future enforcement.
In her decision, Chapman said responsibility for the animals is shared among multiple parties involved in the shipment, including the airline and other federally regulated entities. Placing full responsibility on the exporter for all possible contingencies would be unreasonable, she found, particularly once control of the animals had been handed off.
The charge against Carolyle Farms of Swan River, Man., had been brought by animal rights group Animal Justice in a rare private prosecution.
“We’re incredibly disappointed, of course, but mostly I’m concerned about what this means for animals,” said Kaitlyn Mitchell, director of legal advocacy with Animal Justice.
Case background
The case centred on a December 2022 shipment of 79 horses flown from Winnipeg to Japan. The flight was originally scheduled to stop in Anchorage, Alaska, but was rerouted to Seattle due to a snowstorm. The change extended the journey beyond the 28-hour limit for transporting horses without food, water or rest under federal regulations, prompting allegations that the exporter failed to have an adequate contingency plan in place.
Animal Justice pursued private prosecution after first noting the trip with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which did not take enforcement action.
The animal rights group had initially floated three charges against the Manitoba farm. In a 2024 pre-inquiry hearing, they presented a charge of exceeding the federal food, rest and water time limit; failure to have a contingency plan and causing distress to animals.
A Manitoba judge rejected two of those. On the issue of exceeding the limit, the judge noted that the federal regulator, the CFIA, was involved in discussions when it was decided the shipment would proceed. The judge also tossed the charge of distress to animals on jurisdictional issues. Only the charge of failure to have a contingency plan was allowed to go ahead.
Mitchell said Animal Justice is reviewing the decision and will consider whether to appeal.
A full analysis of the case will appear in the next edition of the Manitoba Co-operator.
