Nonetheless, several provisions of the new law, Bill 156, are concerning enough to the province’s animal rights movement that a challenge was issued in early March to have them struck down.

Why it matters: Provincial agriculture minister Ernie Hardeman introduced and championed Bill 156 after hearing from farm groups and livestock haulers fed up with interferences and vandalism committed in the name of eliminating animal agriculture.

Lawyer John Goudy of the London firm Scott Petrie LLP specializes in property and expropriation law as well as agricultural matters, and still operates the family farm he grew up on north of London. He looked at several areas of law currently affecting farms including the “checkerboarding” approach to consolidating and subdividing farm properties, as well as laws surrounding underground fuel tanks.

But he kicked off his afternoon talk with a discussion of trespassing.

Under the Trespass to Property Act and the Occupiers Liability Act, both updated most recently in 1990, special provisions already exist for farmland and woodlots. Unauthorized entry is prohibited even without “no trespassing” signs, a provision that doesn’t apply for other types of properties. And if someone is on a farm or woodlot without authorization, “they are deemed to have assumed the risk” of any mishap that might occur.

As a result, Goudy explained, farm or woodlot owners can’t be held liable if someone is unintentionally harmed while on the property without notice.

He stressed, however, that all landowners have a duty not to intentionally endanger people through the setting of traps or the creation of other hazards. And they can’t threaten to or actively impinge upon personal safety if they find someone on their land.

So it certainly wasn’t outside legal precedent to see livestock farmers and truckers singled out for particular protection under Bill 156. Under the new law, Goudy noted, charges can be laid if an unauthorized person is inside a farm’s Animal Protection Zone – an area that can be delineated by something as simple as a pasture fence or barnyard enclosure.

The maximum fine ranges from $15,000 for the first offence up to $25,000 for subsequent offences. This compares to a maximum $10,000 fine under the Trespass to Property Act.

Animal rights activists oppose the law. Animal Justice filed an application on March 8 asking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to rule on the constitutionality of several clauses in Bill 156 “on the basis that these provisions unjustifiably restrict political expression and peaceful protest activities.”

The application, which can be viewed on the Animal Justice website, says that prohibitions against entering into animal housing facilities under false pretences and against interfering or interacting with farmed animals represent an “unconstitutional impact on fundamental freedoms” related to freedom of expression and freedom of the press and that these impacts are “compounded by unduly harsh and unconstitutional arrest and penalty provisions.”

For now, Goudy said the enhancements in Bill 156 are significant. He noted that the Trespass to Property Act now technically doesn’t apply within Animal Protection Zones. The intention isn’t to allow unauthorized people into the area but rather to ensure there’s no ambiguity and the full strength of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act can apply.

The post Bill 156 sees court challenge from animal activist groups appeared first on Farmtario.

“It may be a bumpy road to go through this process as a victim,” said Ottawa-based livestock welfare law specialist Kurtis Andrews on Feb. 20 in Woodstock. He was a participant — along with Sgt. Laura-Lee Brown of the Ontario Provincial Police and Emily den Haan of Sheldon Creek Dairy, in a panel discussion during the annual South Western Ontario Dairy Symposium.

Why it matters: The prospect of trespassers on farms is causing increased stress for farm owners and their families living there.

Activists’ emerging tactic of on-farm trespassing and public property protest is not going away, said Andrews. Two days prior to the symposium, activists split from a roadside demonstration, entered the King Cole duck farm near Stouffville, and stole 26 ducks. He says the cases need to be carried through the justice system.

“It’s like being a victim in pretty much any case… It’s traumatic. There are lingering effects.” He stressed, however, that “those effects are likely going to be there no matter if you pursue the case or not.”

Andrews believes the recent passage of Bill 156 sends a message from the provincial government to police and the courts that protection of farms from such actions is a priority.

First off in the process of being a victim is recognizing that’s it’s happening.

The speed with which the process unfolds may vary. “Charges don’t necessarily have to be made at that time to mean that consequences are coming,” Sgt. Brown said. The legislation gives the leeway for charges to be laid later.

She also advised that, once police are on site, owners shouldn’t expect a quick resolution and to see the activists disperse. In fact, if it’s taking longer than initially expected, perhaps that’s a good thing. It might mean the officers are working hard to de-escalate the situation and come up with a resolution that’s favourable to all.

Of those farmers she has interacted with who were reluctant to become a part of the process as a victim, Brown saw some who either personally or as matter of cultural/religious identity didn’t want to move into the public sphere. For others, there was a fear of reprisals.

If it’s serious enough, Brown added, the OPP will choose to go ahead with charges anyway. But there may be less likelihood that the prosecution will be carried through to its conclusion if there’s not a victim to provide testimony. Additionally, a failure to report or have charges pressed hinders police and government authorities from grasping the full scope of the problem — from knowing, she said, “where the problems are within the community.”

Den Haan’s family’s operation was identified as a potential target of a mass on-farm trespass last year. Activists altered their targeted farm hours before they were expected to arrive. Sheldon Creek installed cameras and keyless locks at all entrances to their barns. “It’s not cheap,” but “we have invested,” says den Haan.

Record-keeping, Andrews said, is crucial. He cited two cases, both involving the same activist, in which the farms had a process written down about how to respond to certain incidents related to animal welfare. But only one had a log book for recording these incidents, including the details of the issue, the response, the outcome, and initials of the person involved. “And it doesn’t have to be anything extravagant. It can be a three-ring binder.”

In the case of an invasion by activists, good record-keeping can also show the state of a farm prior to the invasion, compared to after. This could be used to prove the degree of damages incurred as a result of the trespassing.

Andrews is generally satisfied with actions taken by the ruling Conservatives in Ontario, both with the revamping of the OSPCA Act and with Bill 156 (the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act). However, he would like to see some particular actions taken by the federal government.

In federal food safety legislation, entry into barns is severely restricted only after an outbreak of disease. With an aim to prevent uninvited visitors from spreading disease from one animal activist target site to another, he would like to see restrictions and penalties enhanced.

Also, he says, Health Canada’s legislation aimed at protecting mental health should be enhanced to make it a crime to target someone or a group of people for harassment — either physically or online — based on their employment/line of work. There is all-party support for this enhancement of the legislation, and he’d like to see this enacted soon.

Den Haan also called on the farm community to make sure that what’s happening on farms is in line with the messages being disseminated to the public and in marketing campaigns about livestock care, handling, housing, transport and welfare.

The post Targeted farmers need to recognize they’re victims appeared first on Farmtario.

Conservative Party of Canada agriculture critic John Barlow introduced the bill with the goal of punishing those responsible for on farm protests.

Why it matters: Protesters are increasingly entering livestock barns and taking animals, potentially introducing disease and disrupting the livestock.

“There are a lot of variables (farmers) have to deal with, commodity prices, now a carbon tax and illegal blockades,” he said. “Having to deal with activists and protesters coming on your property and into your barns and onto your land is just one thing that we don’t think that they should have to deal with,” he said.

If passed, the bill would amend the Health of Animals Act and make it an offence to enter a place where animals are kept without permission if doing so could result in the animals being exposed to disease or a toxic substance.

Ontario has proposed similar legislation.

It has the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Meat Council, Canadian Pork Council, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada and Turkey Farmers of Canada.

“We are not trying to muzzle free speech. This is nothing against legal protesting,” Barlow said. “You can do that on public land, that is fine. But when you cross that line onto private property, we have an issue.”

The bill would also put in place a financial penalty and potential jail time for people involved in threatening on-farm animals. A fine of up to $50,000 or up to two years of imprisonment is included for individuals, while every person other than an individual — essentially meaning organizations — who contravene the new law would be subject to a fine of up to $500,000.

“A lot of times these protesters don’t really understand the potential consequences of when they are endangering animal health,” said Barlow.

“The feeling that we had was, you know, a lot of these groups are now very well funded, very well organized by large organizations like PETA and the World Wildlife Fund,” he said. “To just have a small fine for an individual is one thing, but I think the groups that are organizing this and putting our food supply and the biosecurity of our supply chain at risk, there has to be consequences for them as well.”

Lisa Bishop-Spencer, director of brand and communications for Chicken Farmers of Canada, said producers take a lot of pride in raising safe food for Canadians.

“We have a government recognized on-farm food safety program that strictly enforces biosecurity measures on every farm across the country,” she said. “It’s a mandatory program. It’s an enforceable program. It’s a third party audit program.”

Anything that helps to strengthen animal health laws is good for the chicken farmers, according to Bishop-Spencer, who said she is encouraged people within the House of Commons are recognizing the issue because it is a substantive threat to farmers.

“I can’t tell you specifically how many on farm trespassers there have been as a result of activism as we call it, but I can tell you that it has increased,” she said. “We’re always hearing about it, it was becoming a new method by which attention could be drawn to those who wish animal agriculture didn’t exist.”

She added it’s a concern the organization hears about weekly from farmers.

While private member bills often don’t pass, Barlow is hopeful for some bipartisan support in the Liberal minority government.

“It’s also raising some awareness that our farmers, our producers, processors, they care more than anyone in the world about the health of their environment, their animals and their operations,” said Barlow. “This is also an opportunity for us to highlight the work that they’re doing to kind of change the narrative that, you know, Canadian farmers and agriculture do better than anybody in the world. And we should be proud of that, not attacking them.”

“We’re all worried about the safety of our food. And we want to make sure it’s protected.”

The post Industry supports bill to regulate barn invasions appeared first on Farmtario.

“You have the right to peaceful protest. That’s part of our key message: We live in a country with freedom of expression,” says Sgt. Kerry Schmidt, of the OPP.

However, once someone is trespassing on others’ freedom of enjoyment, it’s a different story.

Why it matters: Protests on farmers, where farmers live with their families, have created more stress for food producers.

Schmidt and Const. Kelly Daniels spoke at the recent Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting.

Daniels is a member of a Provincial Liaison Team (PLT). She is the one who walks up to protesters for a conversation about what is allowed and what is not. The PLTs talk to people on both sides of a situation to try to keep lines of communication open and to keep the event peaceful.

For example, she interacts with the Ontario Pig Save group at a processing plant in Ingersoll.

“They hold a vigil, and I have to say that with a straight face, but I have to acknowledge that they have a right to their beliefs,” she said. She also deals with worker picket line limits in labour disputes.

The interaction of the police is prompted by reasonable limits. Protesters can picket your laneways — but they can’t hold you from leaving or entering.

“If they hold you there 20 minutes or 30 minutes, then we would change our tune,” said Daniels.

Optics are important. Daniels says most protesters are there to gather images for social media posts.

“Sometimes (they) just go to get a picture and 20 minutes later they’ve gone,” she says.

Think about the image you want to project if you talk to the protesters, says Schmidt.

“If you just came back from varmint killing and have a gun in your hand when confronting them, then that’s what going to be on the six o’clock news or on their social media feeds,” he says.

A farmer asked a question about liability for the farm when a protester enters the property.

As long as what is around is used for normal farming practices — including electric fences — and the person is trespassing, then they won’t have much of a civil case.

“They are already committing an offence by coming over the fence,” said Daniels.

Schmidt acknowledged that the police know that farm protests are taken personally, because a farmer’s family likely lives at the site of the protest, but encouraged calm and developing a relationship with local law enforcement agencies.

Tips for managing protesters from the OPP:

• Remain calm. The calmer you are, the smarter you will think.
• Patience is key.
• Install no trespassing signs.
• Protestors are legally permitted to peacefully demonstrate.
• Charter rights do not protect threats or acts of violence like assault, destruction of property or other unlawful conduct.
• Record everything you can. There’s a good chance you are being recorded as well.

The post The fine line between protest and provocation appeared first on Farmtario.

The Ontario government introduced a bill Dec. 2 aimed at discouraging people who would interfere with livestock production and transportation.

The legislation, Security From Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019, will increase fines for trespassers, protect farmers from civil liability from people injured while trespassing, and limit the interaction protesters are allowed with livestock transportation vehicles.

Why it matters: Activists have become more brazen in trespassing on farms and stopping livestock trucks, which has increased concern from farmers.

“Obviously a lot of concern has been expressed about safety on the farm. We decided we should take action on that and we should find a way to make sure people feel safe and secure on their farms. Everyone in Ontario has a right to a safe workplace,” said Ernie Hardeman, Ontario’s minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in an interview with Farmtario. He emphasized that the legislation will also protect the safety of the food supply.

He says the new legislation will define animals zone which will be covered by the increased fines and controls of the act.

For example, someone who drives across a farm in a snowmobile without permission in the winter could still be charged under the regular trespass act. However, if someone comes into a barn without permission then they could be charged under the new act.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) says it held more than 20 roundtable meetings this fall with those involved in livestock production and transportation.

“We appreciate the support of the Ontario government in taking the concerns of Ontario livestock and poultry farmers seriously and acting swiftly to address them. Farmers implement biosecurity measures to protect against unwanted diseases as well as stress on our farm animals,” said Keith Currie, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Representatives of farm groups were on hand when the legislation was introduced.

There are unique challenges to trespassers on farms including that fact that the farmer often works where their families live, farm animals can be exposed to stress and disease and the fact that contaminants can be introduced into the larger food supply.

“We think it is very important they still have every right to demonstrate, but protect security for people on farms,” said Hardeman.

“It’s important that if you go into the barn you are there at request of and with permission of the owner,” says Hardeman. “If you are in the building, you are automatically breaking the law if you can’t prove you should be there.”

Fines would be increased to $15,000 for a first offence, and $25,000 for subsequent offences, compared to a maximum of $10,000 under the Trespass to Property Act.

The legislation will allow a court to order restitution for damage under certain circumstances that could include damage to a farmer’s livestock, including for theft.

There will also be increased protection against civil liability from people who were hurt while trespassing or otherwise contravening the act.

There will be exemptions to allow police, municipal bylaw and animal protection officers to access properties.

The legislation also would prohibit the “stopping, hindering, obstructing or interfering with a motor vehicle transporting farm animals” and would prohibit “interacting with farm animals being transported by a motor vehicle without explicit prior consent”.

Updated Dec. 2 to add comments from Ontario Minister of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Ernie Hardeman.

The post Ontario introduces farm trespass act appeared first on Farmtario.

Sergeant Laura Brown told a recent meeting of the Eastern Canada Farm Writers Association that “activist activity is hot on everybody’s radar right now for good reason. It’s on ours as well and not just for agriculture.”

Why it matters: Animal rights activists have recently trespassed individually and in large groups onto Ontario farms. One, who admitted stealing pigs in social media posts, had her charges dropped, drawing the ire of the farm community.

The OPP has a provincial liaison team that is the go-between with organizations and groups in the province. When there’s any sort of action by a group, they are the first call, as they usually have contacts and background information.

Brown used the example of when she took a call about a barn fire that killed 1600 pigs. Activists said they were going to protest at the scene. She called the provincial liaison team and they talked to people involved, including agriculture organizations.

“People will say what they want to say,” said Brown, who is based in London. “What we are concerned about is keeping things safe.”

Just as the police have a plan, farms should have a plan for trespassers and activists. Talk to family members and employees about the plans, she said.

“What is your safety plan, not your confrontation plan, your safety plan,” said Brown. “You want to protect people at your business or your home. Have a meeting place, like a fire plan.”

Few activists are looking for a physical confrontation, so don’t give them one.

“They usually want to send a message and then go,” she said.

She said she couldn’t talk about the recent withdrawal of charges in the London pig theft case. But she said that police officers pledge to charge people if they believe there are criminal grounds to do so, and admitted that they can be frustrated when those charges don’t stick.

“If someone is charged criminally, all we can do is put the charge before the court,” she said.

She recommends surveillance for barns and valuable facilities, especially when they can be easily integrated into new construction.

“Our tools are great if necessary. We have what we need to do job. We have legislation, we have our eyes and we have our colleagues.”

The post Police have plans for activists, says officer appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: An increase in animal rights activists trespassing on farms has created concern and anxiety among farmers.

Andrews cites several recent cases that cause him concern in his letter to Attorney General Carolyn Mulroney.

The crown attorney in Middlesex County announced May 1 that it was dropping break and entry and mischief charges against a woman who was accused of breaking into a barn and removing piglets. She has posted about her activism on social media and in interviews with The Toronto Star.

The Middlesex crown attorney said that there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction.”

Another activist, who was accused of breaking into mink farms, also had charges dropped.

“I am at a loss to understand how the prosecutions of these crimes are not being pursued,” said Andrews in the letter posted to his website and Twitter account.

The recent visits of numerous activists to dairy farmers in British Columbia and Ontario is also concerning, he says.

Biosecurity of farms is also being compromised and that creates threats to farm businesses.

“No matter what your beliefs happen to be, it is unacceptable to provide radical activists with a free pass to break the law. Farmers are living in fear. They should be treated with the same respect that any crime victim deserves. All farmers should be confident that the authorities will protect them like any other citizen of this province.”

The post Agriculture lawyer calls for conviction of trespassing activists appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: Animal rights activists are illegally trespassing on farm businesses and properties. These actions put farmers, their families and workers in unwanted and unsafe situations.

Anyone who enters private property without the owner or occupier’s permission or under legal authority is considered trespassing. If they fail to leave when asked, they can be found guilty of a trespasser’s offence under the Trespass to Property Act.

Both the Trespass to Property Act and the Occupiers’ Liability Act use the term “occupier”. This term covers the legal owner, as well as their tenant.

Under the Trespassing to Property Act, Section 3 — Prohibition to Entry clearly states:

“Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).”

Producers who find unwanted individuals entering their property, should politely ask them to leave. If they do not leave, producers should call 911 and record interactions to use for later evidence.

“We never want anyone to put their own safety in jeopardy. We continue to encourage individuals to contact the authorities as soon as possible,” says Rodney LeClair, media relations and community safety officer with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in Cayuga. “We want them to be careful and not provoke the individuals or create hostility.”

Producers should note licence plates, vehicle descriptions, and gather as much information as they can to help police.

Police may not be able to shut down protests because organizations have the right to do so, but police may stop it if it is affecting traffic, causing safety concerns or criminal offences are occurring, says LeClair.

Murray Sherk, chair of Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO), says the DFO is working with local authorities on the investigations following recent protest events.

He said it is recommended that producers post “no entry,” “no trespassing” and biosecurity signage on their properties.

As well, producers should report suspicious activities to authorities, have emergency plans in place and ensure that family members and staff are aware of the protocols on how handle situations should they arise.

The post Farmers fear being targeted by activist invasions appeared first on Farmtario.

While courts in the United States have not ruled in their favour, more cases from large, well-funded animal rights groups are being filed, said Michelle Pardo, a partner in the firm Duane Morris, which defends companies against animal activist attacks. It has handled cases for food and clothing companies, exhibitions and laboratories that use animals. The company has also dealt with regulations regarding animals.

Why it matters: Legislation in the form of right to farm and that meant to curtail animal activist filming of barns without permission, have meant they have taken to the courts as a new route to challenging use of animals.

“Even though animal businesses both on the food production side and the animal research side and clothing side are heavily regulated, you still have a lot of criticism on the part of the public and groups that share different philosophical agendas,” she said at the North American Meat Institute animal welfare conference in Kansas City in October.

Pardo’s first case came when the United States Endangered Species Act was cited against the Ringling Brothers Circus for its use of elephants that activists wanted retired to sanctuaries.

“For the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act, the prevailing defendant, which was the circus, was entitled to attorney fees and that brought them to the table with a settlement of $25 million,” she said.

Environmental court challenges regarding impacts on air or water have been launched against agricultural enterprises with the goal to shut them down.

Activists are also attempting to provide animals with legal “personhood,” she said. Organizations such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defence Fund have tried to provide representation on behalf of animals.

A horse named Justice was removed from an abusive owner and the legal defence fund sued as a plaintiff in Oregon state court. The suit sought money to support the horse after it was moved to a sanctuary.

So far, the courts have not recognized animals as plaintiffs, but the legal community is monitoring these cases.

“Every time one of these is filed, most of the legal community is watching to see if there is going to be a court that bites on this theory and allows these animals to sue in court,” she said.

‘Monkey selfie’

Pardo also cited the so-called “monkey selfie” case, which went before the Northern District of California.

PETA filed a lawsuit as the “next friend” of Naruto the monkey. The monkey took a photo of itself when a photographer dropped his camera. PETA alleged the monkey, not the wildlife photographer, was true owner of the copyright. The court ruled animals have no standing under the Copyright Act to bring lawsuits and criticized PETA for putting forward a frivolous suit and using the monkey as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals.

Consumer fraud actions have also been filed. Labels like “humanely raised,” “all natural” or “happy animals” were challenged in California.

Farm Sanctuary charged these labels are misleading and said no matter how they were raised, slaughtering and eating animals is not humane. The judge ruled the term “humane” is inherently subjective and is not capable of a judicial review.

“These are actually very serious cases. It is a way animal activist groups and enterprising players can take animal welfare into the courtroom,” she said.

There are large defence firms willing to take on these cases on a pro bono basis.

Keep good records

If a company is challenged in court, good record-keeping is important to show that regulatory requirements were met. Those records should provide information on certification requirements, policies on staff training and reporting of animal abuse.

Having cameras to monitor activities at the farm or facility can be positive or it may have negative effects if bad behaviour is recorded. Activists have at times released animal-handling videos on the internet, which can be very damaging if they show inappropriate behaviour.

Pardo advised clients facing court action to introduce information from veterinarians or animal-handling experts. Scientific evidence can go a long way with judges and juries, she said.

If a facility has faced protests, animal rescues or damage, there are trespass, theft and assault laws in place for protection and the incidents must be reported to authorities. Clients facing a court challenge or a public exposé should conduct media interviews and put the media in touch with veterinarians, third-party auditors or other experts to provide additional information, she said.

The post U.S. animal rights activists test new tactics appeared first on Farmtario.