Title: Legal Expert Doubts Supreme Court Will Hear B.C. Ostrich Case

A law professor from the University of Ottawa expressed skepticism about the Supreme Court of Canada taking on a case involving a British Columbia farm that is trying to prevent the culling of its ostriches. Paul Daly, who holds the research chair in administrative law and governance at the university, stated that it has been inaccurately reported that the High Court has granted a stay on the cull order.

Daly clarified that only one judge from the Supreme Court issued an interim stay to allow all nine justices to review the farm's request to halt the cull. He noted that if the Supreme Court denies the farm's application for leave to appeal, the cull would proceed, marking the end of legal options for the ostriches.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) reported that the flock consists of between 300 and 330 ostriches, while the farm claims the number is closer to 400. Both parties have submitted documents to the Supreme Court, which has ordered that the birds remain under the agency's care until a decision is made.

In a recent statement, the CFIA indicated that its inspectors are currently feeding and caring for the ostriches, which are not showing signs of distress. The agency also addressed concerns about online campaigns that encourage supporters of the farm to inundate its phone lines with false inspection requests, warning that such actions could hinder its ability to respond to legitimate inquiries.

The situation escalated on September 22, when police accompanied CFIA staff to the farm near Edgewood, B.C., to enforce a warrant and take control of the ostriches' enclosure. The RCMP reported that they were investigating threats of violence against businesses involved in the CFIA's operations.

Karen Espersen, co-owner of the farm, and her daughter, Katie Pasitney, were arrested last week after they refused to leave the ostrich enclosure. They were later released but are prohibited from returning to the pen.

In its submissions to the Supreme Court, the farm argued that there is currently no legal mechanism to compel an administrative agency to reassess decisions as emergencies develop, a point it claims the lower courts have not addressed. Daly remarked that while it is uncertain whether the court will hear the case, the legal issues involved have already been considered by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, and are not particularly complex.

He added that public sentiment expressed on social media is unlikely to influence the court's decision. "I don’t think the fact that there’s a social media uproar is going to influence the Supreme Court one way or the other," he said. "I think it’s more likely that the Supreme Court ignores the public outcry and just takes a dispassionate view of the merits of the application."

Universal Ostrich Farms clarified in its submissions that it is not asking the courts to question scientific findings but rather to address a recurring issue in administrative law regarding the implementation of emergency powers through general policies as circumstances change.

The CFIA has requested that the farm's application be dismissed, arguing that it largely reiterates points previously rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal. The agency contends that the farm's case primarily challenges the specifics of its avian flu response policy, which it deems a matter of limited public significance.

Daly anticipates that the Supreme Court will reach a decision quickly regarding whether to hear the case.

This report was first published on October 1, 2025.