Animal advocates are celebrating after parts of a controversial Ontario farm law that made it illegal to get a job on a farm under false pretenses to expose internal conditions were deemed unconstitutional.
Judge Markus Koehnen struck down parts of House Bill 156, the Food Safety Protection and Intrusion Security Act, earlier this month after the advocacy group Animal Justice, along with an activist and a journalist, launched a challenge to the Charter in 2021.
They argued that the new law infringed on their freedom of speech because they could not tell the outside world what was happening inside a farm if they gained access to the property under false pretense.
The law required the owner’s consent to be on property where animals are kept, raised or slaughtered. That consent was voided under the law if someone lied to gain access to the land.
“The law limits speech by preventing covert disclosures or even eyewitness descriptions of the conditions under which animals are raised or slaughtered if the person providing the description gained access to the facility under false pretenses,” the judge wrote in your decision.
“In light of the above, I consider that one of the purposes and one of the effects of the law and the regulations is to harm the freedom of expression of the applicants.”
The province enacted the legislation in response to demands from the agricultural industry and about 120 municipal resolutions calling on the government to do more to control trespassing, according to the decision.
Ontario argued that the legislation was intended to “protect animal safety, biosecurity and farmer safety, as well as prevent economic harm that can arise from threats to animal safety and biosecurity.”
Part of the case centered on lying.
“If lies can amount to protected speech in a context as hateful as Holocaust denial, they should be equally protected when someone denies having a college degree or being affiliated with an animal rights group to obtain employment or entry into an organization.” animal auction, a petting zoo, rodeo, fair or circus,” the judge ruled.
The news thrilled Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice.
“It is a decisive victory over unconstitutional ‘gag’ laws that were designed and had the effect of covering up serious animal cruelty on farms,” he said.
“In light of this ruling, we look forward to returning to investigative work in Ontario as soon as possible.”
Animal advocates had filed undercover videos from farms that eventually aired on national television broadcasts and led to criminal charges and convictions in some cases. None of that would have happened without lying to get a job in the first place.
“The expression is in the public interest,” Koehnen wrote.
“Publicity about the way animals are treated is an issue of interest to at least some members of the public. It is an issue about which the public has a right to be informed if they wish.”
Advocates who brought the case also argued that undercover agents would follow the rules on the farms and only go out of their way to take photographs or videos of what was happening with the animals.
The judge agreed.
“For a potential employee to deny any association with animal rights groups in a job interview does not threaten biosecurity, the food supply chain, or the safety of animals,” the judge wrote.
“Neither does the act of following up on such an activist communicating what he sees at an agricultural facility.”
The bill also made it illegal to interact with animals inside transport trucks, a law apparently designed to target one group in the province: Toronto Pig Save. The group is part of the larger Save Movement, whose members “bear witness” and hold vigils for animals headed to slaughter.
They often gave water to pigs inside trucks stopped at intersections to “show kindness and compassion to the animals in their final moments,” the decision states.
Two days after the bill went into effect in June 2020, a truck carrying a load of live pigs struck and killed Regan Russell, 65, who was protesting the new law outside a slaughterhouse in Burlington, Ont. The driver, Andrew Blake, pleaded guilty to the provincial offense of reckless driving causing death. He was fined $2,000 and sentenced to 12 months’ probation.
The Regan Russell Foundation intervened in this case, arguing that the law interfered with both their constitutional right to protest and their freedom of speech.
The judge did not agree and suspended that part of the act.
“The purpose of protecting free speech is precisely that, to allow people to express themselves,” Koehnen wrote. “It does not allow people to appropriate, even momentarily, the property of others as a means of that expression.”
Russell’s stepson, Joshua Powell, was disappointed with that part of the decision.
“It’s disturbing, but we’re very, very happy that the judge upheld the ability to hold vigils at these locations as a protected act,” Powell said.
“And, most importantly, we are very pleased that covert disclosures, made by journalists or activists, are no longer illegal. It was one of the main reasons Regan was there that day.”
The Ministry of the Attorney General said it is reviewing the decision and has not yet decided whether it will appeal.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 30, 2024.