Summary#

Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, creates a new Ontario law. Its stated goal is to reduce risks to farm animals, food safety, workers and the economy from trespass and interference.

• People may not enter defined animal protection zones on farms, animal processing facilities or prescribed premises without prior consent. They also may not interfere or interact with farm animals there, or do prescribed activities, without consent.
• Enclosures for farm animals count as animal protection zones even without signs. Other areas can qualify if they meet rules and are marked, or if regulations prescribe them.
• The Act prohibits stopping, hindering or obstructing vehicles transporting farm animals, and interfering or interacting with animals in those vehicles without the driver’s consent.
• Owners and occupiers may request information, ask people to stop or leave, or make an arrest in the situations set out in the Act. Drivers may ask people to stop interfering with their vehicle or its animals. Police also have arrest powers.
• A conviction can bring a fine of up to $15,000 for a first offence or $25,000 for a later offence. Courts may also order restitution (payment for certain losses).
• The Act exempts specified people acting in their official duties, people acting lawfully under labour laws or in connection with a lawful strike or lockout, and people exercising existing Aboriginal or treaty rights.

The Act was enacted, but its text says it starts on a date set by proclamation. No start date is given in the supplied material.

What it means for you#

• People entering or acting in animal protection zones: You need prior consent to enter, interact with or interfere with farm animals, or carry out an activity set by regulation. The absence of a warning sign or an objection does not itself mean you have consent.
• People around animal transport vehicles: You must not stop, hinder, obstruct or otherwise interfere with a vehicle transporting farm animals. Interacting with or interfering with animals in the vehicle requires the driver’s prior consent.
• Farm, facility and premises owners or occupiers: You may take the response steps set out in the Act when someone trespasses or does prohibited things. If you make an arrest, only necessary and reasonable force may be used, and police must be called promptly to take custody.
• Drivers transporting farm animals: You may ask a person to stop interfering with your vehicle or its animals. The Act limits your liability for injuries to people who contravene it, except in cases of deliberate harm or wilful or reckless disregard.
• Police and specified officials: Police have arrest powers under the Act. The prohibitions do not apply to police, emergency workers and certain other people acting in the course of duties named in the Act.
• People exercising Aboriginal or treaty rights: The Act says it does not limit existing constitutionally protected rights, and exempts people lawfully exercising those rights from its prohibitions.
• The general public: The Act does not require people to apply for access or set up a process for approving requests. It also does not itself create a new front-line service.

Money#

The available material gives fine limits but no estimate of public costs or other financial effects.

• Courts may order payment for readily ascertainable injury, loss or damage if the prosecutor asks, the affected person agrees, and the legal conditions are met.
• A court may increase penalties in circumstances set by regulation. The amount or method for that increase is not stated in the Act itself.
• Owners of vehicles used in certain offences may be jointly liable with a guilty driver for the fine, subject to notice and other conditions in the Act.
• The Act does not provide a cost estimate for enforcement, policing or administration.

What is unclear#

• The Act leaves key details to regulations, including which animals and facilities are covered, which areas qualify, and what activities count as interference.
• The Act allows regulations to exempt premises or prescribe additional people and circumstances covered by exceptions. The supplied material does not include those regulations.
• No start date is given, and the Act’s practical operation depends in part on regulations.
• The Act does not set out an access-request process, timelines, reporting rules or a review or appeal process for decisions about consent.
• It is unclear from the supplied material how the Act interacts with other access or inspection rules beyond the exceptions it names.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address risks it identifies: disease or stress among farm animals, contamination of food, and risks to workers and transport drivers.
• Requiring prior consent could give owners and occupiers more control over access to animal areas, including enclosures that are not marked with signs.
• Specific rules for animal transport address interference that could happen away from a farm or processing facility.
• Exceptions for official duties, lawful labour activity and existing Aboriginal and treaty rights limit the prohibitions in important situations.

Case against#

• The Act creates substantial penalties and arrest powers, while leaving important coverage details to regulations.
• For some charges, the accused must prove on a balance of probabilities that consent was obtained. One concern is that this may be difficult where consent was not recorded.
• The Act limits liability for owners, occupiers and drivers in many cases involving people who contravene it. A possible trade-off is reduced recourse for those injured in such encounters.
• The Act does not set out a process to resolve disputes about consent, boundaries or whether conduct counts as interference.