AEL Advocacy Denied Leave to Intervene in Ontario Court of Appeal “Ag-Gag” Case

AEL Advocacy has been denied leave to intervene in a case before the Ontario Court of Appeal. In November of 2024, permission was requested to intervene in a case concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and Ontario Regulation 701/20 (collectively, the “Legislation”). This Legislation is an example of an “ag-gag law.” It has been widely criticized for its negative impact on undercover investigations of farms and slaughterhouses. Such investigations are important methods of revealing instances of animal cruelty and environmental violations.

The Appeal

AEL Advocacy sought leave to intervene in the case following the Government of Ontario’s appeal of an April 2024 decision issued by Koehnen J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The decision struck down multiple provisions of the Legislation on the basis that they unjustifiably infringed the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court’s decision preserved a key advocacy tool that allows advocates to document abuses caused by the animal agriculture industry.

AEL Advocacy’s Leave to Intervene Refused

AEL Advocacy’s intention to intervene at the Ontario Court of Appeal was based on the principle of interconnectedness between animal welfare and environmental protection. This important cause requires transparent legislation that promotes accountability from all regulated parties.

Despite receiving the support of the respondents to the appeal in its intervention, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to AEL Advocacy’s requested intervention. The motion judge, Monahan J.A., found that the Court could not properly adjudicate the issues AEL Advocacy sought to raise in its proposed submission. That submission would have addressed how the Legislation might impact the efforts of activists to address the harms caused by the animal agricultural industry through remedies such as the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (“EBR”). The EBR is a key tool that enables Ontarians to speak out against environmental harms and enhances the accountability of industrial actors in line with the recognized freedom of expression.

Monahan J.A. found no evidentiary basis from the initial decision to address the proposed submissions as no party in the original decision raised issues similar to AEL Advocacy’s arguments. Further, it was found that the submissions would have expanded the case beyond the issues directly identified in the Government’s appeal. 

While disappointed by the result, AEL Advocacy respects the Court’s ruling. Other activist groups have been permitted to intervene in this case including Animal Alliance of Canada and Centre for Free Expression. The hope is that their efforts allow the court to address the wide-ranging threats of ag-gag laws to environmental stability and animal welfare. The case remains an important opportunity to affirm the need for transparency in animal welfare, environmental stewardship and public health that we encourage the courts to take advantage of.