R. v. Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd., 2021 BCPC 330

Citation: R. v. Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd. 2021 BCPC 330 Date: 20211027 File No: 68598 Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. BLUE GOOSE CATTLE COMPANY LTD. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. CHALLENGER Counsel for the Federal Crown: Charles Hough, Counsel for the Defendant: William Smart Q.C. and Rebecca Robb Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: July 27, 2021 Date of Judgment: October 27, 2021 [ 1 ] The Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd. pled guilty to one count of selling beef to food distributors in British Columbia which was falsely represented to be certified organic but which was from cattle that had been raised with the use of hormones and antibiotics or had

been fed food which was not organic. This violated the provisions of s. 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act and constitutes an offence under s. 31(1). The beef was sold between March 7 th and March 14 th 2017. The Crown proceeded by Indictment. [ 2 ] Due to the detailed and complex nature of the investigation, the Information was not laid until July 12 th 2021. A guilty plea was entered on July 28 th 2021 at which time submissions on sentence were made.

Despite the matter proceeding as a joint submission, which the Court indicated it was prepared to accede to, reasons were reserved for the purpose of contributing to a body of sentencing decisions on these kinds of regulatory offences. [ 3 ] The purpose and principles of sentence are set out in ss. 718 to 718.21 of the Criminal Code .

Section 718.21 sets out further considerations relating to the imposition of sentence on organizations. [ 4 ] Compliance with regulations relating to proper identification of food products is necessary to ensure the foods we purchase and consume are what are represented by their labelling. Denunciation and general deterrence are the principles of sentence to be given the greatest weight in these matters. Whatever fine is imposed it must be a significant amount and sufficient to ensure that it is not easily absorbed as a cost of doing business. [ 5 ] The maximum fine available is $250,000.00.

The range of sentence for such offences is not well supported by precedent. However, the Crown provided the Court with three authorities. [ 6 ] The Queen v. AMCO Produce Incorporated , (March 12, 2018) ONSC File #CR-16-00003784-000 also involved an offence under s. 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. The matter proceeded as a joint submission following a guilty plea. The corporate defendant had intentionally mislabelled foreign produce as Canadian grown. They sold $333,000.00 wholesale value of mislabelled produce. A total of $210,000.00 in fines and three years of probation was imposed. [ 7 ] R. v.

Ontario Corporation 1780010 operating as Eastern Meat Solutions Inc. , (September 12, 2017) ONCJ also involved an offence under s. 5(1) of the Act . Beef trim labelled as prime rib, sirloin or Angus was determined to be standard beef trim. The market value of the mislabelled beef was $613,572.00 all of which was seized and later sold for rendering which recouped $100,000.00. The company spent $150,000.00 to bring their labelling practices into compliance. A total of $200,000.00 in fines was imposed. [ 8 ] In R. v. 0865838 B.C.

Ltd. , 2015 BCSC 1913 the company pled guilty to one count of selling food that is unfit for human consumption contrary to s. 4(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. One thousand five hundred kilograms of beef which had not yet been tested for E. coli and which later tested positive for E. coli was sold for $6,000.00. The company did not take steps to recall the beef when they learned it was contaminated. There were no reported illnesses due to consumption of the tainted beef. The company was shut down for a month which resulted in a loss of revenue of $400,000.00 or more.

A fine of $125,000.00 was imposed. [ 9 ] The Canada Organic Regime is a federal framework for organic certification. The Canadian General Standards Board publishes standards for the production of organic food. Under the regime Conformity Verification Bodies are designated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to assess, recommend for accreditation and subsequently monitor Certification Bodies which are run by those in various areas of organic food and products production.

The Certification Bodies are responsible for organic certification and labelling and employ inspectors to verify compliance with the regulations. [ 10 ] The organic food industry in Canada is of important economic interest. As of 2020 there were 7,500 producers. Canadians spend seven billion dollars a year on organic foods and that number is rising. In 2019 Canada exported a half a billion dollars in organic foods. [ 11 ] Blue Goose has been in business for many years and enjoyed a positive reputation for providing “clean beef” which is either certified organic or natural.

They have been certified as an organic producer since 2004. They are involved in raising, finishing and distributing beef products. There have been no previous regulatory compliance issues. [ 12 ] At the time the offence arose there was a high demand for Canadian cattle from markets in the United States. Blue Goose was buying and selling both conventional and organic cattle. The thirty five cattle in question were destined for the US but were mistakenly sent to an organic processing facility in B.C. where they were slaughtered. Eighteen were sold as sides of organic beef.

The other seventeen were sold as natural beef. The total value of the non organic beef sold as being organic was $64,000.00. [ 13 ] There was no financial advantage to the company in substituting conventional cattle for organic cattle as they had a surplus of organic cattle at the time. The meat was safe for consumption but did not meet the standards for being certified organic.

The offence came to light when discrepancies in documentation relating to the identification tags on the cattle was discovered. [ 14 ] The offence was one of inadvertence and resulted from a failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure that cattle being shipped and received were properly identified as organically raised. The principals of the company were embarrassed by the circumstances of the offence and regret the damage their failure to have a proper system in place did to the reputation of their company.

By 2018 the defendant company had engaged the assistance of the Pacific Agricultural Certification Society to develop a fool proof system for ensuring only organic cattle are finished as organic beef. As of 2021 they have chosen not to maintain their organic certification. [ 15 ] Discussions and negotiations about resolution and an appropriate penalty had been ongoing for many months prior to the charges being laid and the entering of the guilty plea. These involved input from the investigators and regulatory bodies involved.

Douglas Sinclair, a principal with Blue Goose, attended the sentencing proceedings. [ 16 ] Crown and defense submit a fine in the amount of $150,000.00 is appropriate and meets the principles of sentence. I agree. The plea and disposition agreement and joint submission meets the public interest test as set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook , 2016 S.C.R. 204 and R. v. Cheema , 2019 BCCA 268 at paragraph 20 . A trial on this matter could have taken up to a month of court time. [ 17 ] A fine of $150,000.00 is imposed.

_____________________________ The Honourable Judge J. Challenger Provincial Court of British Columbia