Open Letter to the Federal Court of Appeal: Defending Due Process, Truth, and the Future of Justice in Canada

send one NOW

Three judges in Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal now hold the fate of a small farm and potentially the fate of due process itself, in their hands.

We, concerned citizens and defenders of fundamental rights, write to respectfully urge this Honourable Court to render a decision that restores the rule of law, evidentiary integrity, and constitutional accountability in the matter of Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Why This Case Matters

This case is not about poultry. It is not even strictly about ostriches. It is about whether a government agency can act without transparency, oversight, or adherence to the principles of natural justice.

It is about whether a small farm , with no reported “cases” of bird flu since January , can be ordered to cull hundreds of healthy, rare birds based on outdated policy, flawed assumptions, and only two PCR tests on decomposing carcasses, while all further testing is denied.

CFIA counsel today claimed , on the public record, that only two birds were tested because the rest were scavenged and or decomposed. This is demonstrably false. Several ostriches died after those two tests. A hen died in the presence of CFIA agents, who could have collected viable samples but did not. No necropsies were performed on any of the 69 dead birds. NO CAUSE OF DEATH HAS EVER BEEN DETERMINED.

These are not minor oversights. They strike at the very heart of evidence-based science and procedural fairness.

The Conflict of Interest That Cannot Be Ignored

During today’s hearing, UOF counsel raised a serious concern: the farm’s former lawyer, coerced his clients into signing over their future compensation , from the very agency they were fighting , to cover his legal fees. In exchange, he continued to represent them during the judicial review, only to abandon critical arguments, including invoking the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Even Justice Zinn remarked in his written decision that the Bill of Rights argument had been abandoned — not rejected — leaving a gaping hole in the defense of fundamental rights.

Let that sink in: The lawyer’s paycheque would be signed by CFIA — but only if the birds were killed. This isn’t just a conflict of interest. It is a betrayal of client trust and a potential breach of professional ethics.

This Court now has before it the opportunity to recognize this injustice, and to ensure that a party is not punished because its previous counsel failed to do their job.

Why the Canadian Bill of Rights Still Matters

Today’s hearing also referenced Shaw v. Canada, affirming that a court has discretion to hear new issues where failing to do so risks injustice.

If ever there was a case where that principle must apply, it is this one.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees:

• Section 1(a) – the right to life, liberty, and property, and to not be deprived of them except by due process;

• Section 2(e) – the right to a fair hearing before being stripped of legal rights.

• The Minister of Justice, under Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, has a legal obligation to review all federal laws and regulations to ensure they do not violate these rights. Where violations exist, the Minister must report them to Parliament. The CFIA’s actions, if left unchecked by this Court, would represent a clear failure of this legal duty and a dangerous precedent of constitutional neglect.

The CFIA’s policy-driven cull orders offer none of these protections. No tribunal. No testing. No hearing. No due process. Just destruction.

If the Court upholds the lower court’s decision, it effectively affirms that government agencies may act unilaterally, free from scientific challenge, legal accountability, or constitutional restraint.

This Isn’t About One Farm Anymore

• It’s about every Canadian farmer who raises livestock.

• It’s about every citizen who depends on fair trials and science-based decisions.

• It’s about whether bureaucracy can trump biology, and whether flawed policies — drafted without public scrutiny — can dictate irreversible actions.

Today’s outcome will either open the door for truth and fairness… or bolt it shut.

Our Request to the Court

We respectfully ask this Honourable Court to:

1. Quash the lower court’s decision, recognizing the abandonment of fundamental arguments and the conflict of interest that tainted the judicial review;

2. Acknowledge that the Health of Animals Act, as applied here, violates due process under the Canadian Bill of Rights;

3. Affirm that scientific evidence and veterinary expertise must guide policy, especially when lives — human or animal — are on the line;

4. Recognize that Canadian courts remain the final guardians of liberty, property, and procedural justice.

The principles of fundamental justice are not optional. They are essential to the rule of law, especially when executive agencies act without oversight, bypassing science and due process.

Final Thought

If this court refuses to act in the face of blatant injustice … if it allows hundreds of healthy animals to be slaughtered without fresh evidence, oversight, or fair hearing, then the message to Canadians is chillingly clear:

“You don’t need science. You don’t get rights. And if your lawyer sells you out, too bad.”

But we believe this Court is better than that. We believe Canada is better than that.

And we believe the truth, however inconvenient , must prevail.

Respectfully submitted by concerned citizens of Canada.

Please share this open letter widely, by email and on social media. The judges may never read it directly — but the truth has a way of finding its way into the record.