The arguments presented to Justices Roberts, Miller and Zarnett in the Ontario Court of Appeals revolved around the legislative intent and constitutionality of false pretenses within Ontario’s Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act (STPFSA), 2020.

Why it matters: On April 2, 2024, Superior Court Judge Koehnen ruled that specific provisions within the Act violate the right of freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights, declaring them to have no force or effect.

In 2022, Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, advocate Jessica Scott-Reid, and Toronto Cow Save organizer Louise Jorgensen challenged the constitutionality of new animal welfare legislation aimed at preventing activist disruptions and protecting farms from trespassing.

Arden Beddoes, a litigator for Scott-Reid and Jorgensen, argued that the Act infringes on freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Charter by focusing on the aspect of false pretenses rather than the value of the undercover exposé.

“There is no property right to the truth, the Absolute Truth, from everyone who seeks ingress,” argued Beddoes. “Under state laws enacted in this province, you only vitiate the consent because of this law. It’s not in the Trespass Act.”

Justice Zarnett pushed back, arguing the Trespass Act is procedural, dealing with remedies, not the relationship of trespass, which is established in common law, not the Trespass Act.

“But for the exposés, there would be no (STPFSA) law. That is the case,” volleyed Beddoes.

To which Justice Roberts replied, “But for the trespass, there would be no law,” questioning whether the deceit and the consent are inextricably intertwined to impair the validity of consent.

Justice Zarnett asked if the law’s “new” aspect was making something a trespass or establishing a provincial offence in those circumstances, which would otherwise only be actionable in a civil court.

“This is how you stop investigations, private investigations, investigative journalism, much of which, or a significant portion of which, could require investigatory deception,” Beddoes said, adding investigatory deceptions are protected under Section 2(b).

“They contribute to a marketplace of ideas from which people like Ms. Scott Reid draw, from which researchers may draw, on these important issues about how humans treat animals.”

Robin Basu, counsel to the Attorney General, stated that between 2007 and 2020, only 16 undercover exposés were published. He suggested that the COVID-19 restrictions from 2021 to 2022 limited undercover exposés more than STPFSA’s enforcement from 2020 to May 2024.

“(The Respondents) can’t say there were no undercover investigations when the law was enforced because we don’t know,” argued Basu. “There’s no evidence in the record that there were none. All we know is that the claimants say, we’re aware of no exposés being published.”

He added that evidence shows animal rights groups often defer reporting to authorities to prolong the collection of visceral footage, without producing an exposé.

Frederick Schumann, Animal Justice representative, stated that the journalist and whistleblower exceptions are too narrow.

“The person must be a journalist when they obtain the consent,” said Schumann.

A person working with an animal advocacy organization on an investigative exposé is not a journalist, nor are they considered an employee at the time they use false representation to gain employment, he explained.

“Neither the journalist exception nor the whistleblower exception is of assistance to them,” Schumann argued, even if they provide material to a media organization, law enforcement or regulatory body.

“It’s excluding, fundamentally, the animal advocacy organization from carrying out the exposé because their primary function is not to disseminate information to the public.”

In his rebuttal, Basu suggested, “There is no obstacle to Animal Justice setting up a subsidiary that is dedicated, or the primary function is the dissemination of information to the public.”

STPFSA targets trespass, not speech, said Basu, and Section 2(b) doesn’t mandate that free expression must secure genuine consent to enter a property, nor do civil consequences narrow constitutional protections.

“My friend said, ‘You can’t lie on your resume under this statute.’ You can lie on your resume,” explained Basu. “You just can’t do it, and when that lie successfully dupes somebody, then enter the farm.”

The post Ontario ag-gag appeal concludes, court ruling pending appeared first on Country Guide.

On Jan. 14, guests gathered in the high tower of the Sheraton Cavalier in Saskatoon for the premiere of License to Drive. It showcases equipment close-ups, in-the-cab footage and equipment exhibitors.

This is the second of three episodes in the documentary series, which is a behind-the-scenes look at what happens during Ag in Motion, the annual outdoor farm show that happens every July near Langham, Sask.

With the equipment focus in mind, GFM’s machinery editor, Scott Garvey, is featured sharing his knowledge. Many will know Garvey from his videos and articles on all different types of farm machinery.

In the film, Garvey shared tidbits such as how and why farm machines adopted tracks instead of tires and what being at the show is like, likening it to DisneyWorld for farmers.

This episode’s focus is on the big equipment, while the first episode features cattle and livestock handling equipment. Episode one launched in November during Canadian Western Agribition. The third and final episode will launch in February.

Melonee Ochitwa, GFM’s Saskatchewan sales and sponsorship co-ordinator, has had a hand in the organization of Ag in Motion for the last three years and has also appeared in the documentary.

She shared her excitement about the series and at seeing the second episode come to life, after having a sneak peak at some of the clips before hand.

“It’s amazing when it all comes together, and it’s always so exciting. And it always amazes me how they can kind of take all these little pieces and put it together and make it a show.”

Ochitwa has a background in agricultural manufacturing, and comes from a farm family, so she’s familiar with what’s important to farmers when looking at equipment. Ag in Motion is a great spot to do it, too, she added, with the ability to do more than just look.

“It really gives them those touch points of being able to see … but when they can actually experience it, feel it, see it run, it just makes all the difference.”

The show features equipment demonstrations and the ability to test drive the machinery. Garvey gets the chance to do just that in the documentary, even having a little competition with Western Producer editor Robin Booker.

This casualness adds to the community feel of the show, which Garvey and Ochitwa say is a key piece of it.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a competitor, you know, side by side,” Ochitwa said.

“When you’re at Ag in Motion, everybody is friends, you’re all friends in the business trying to provide the best solution for our farmers.”

Episode two, License to Drive, is available on YouTube. Episode one, Working Cattle, and other ag videos, such as Garvey’s equipment features, are also available on the Western Producer‘s YouTube channel.

The post Crop Production Show 2025: Episode two of Western Producer documentary launches appeared first on Country Guide.