Operational guideline: Food regulatory response guidelines

SFCA 25; FDA 23(2)(l)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA and FDA under section 13(3) of the CFIA act

Seizure and detention of a thing is generally appropriate when there has been a contravention of a regulation associated with the thing.

When faced with non-compliance, the following factors could indicate to an inspector that seizure and detention should be considered:

• the non-compliance is likely to pose a health and safety risk or is likely to have an adverse impact on consumer protection (product efficacy, quality or truthful representation of the product in the marketplace)

and

• the inspector believes 1 or more of the following:
  1. the regulated party is unlikely to correct the non-compliance
  2. the regulated party is unlikely to maintain adequate control of the thing in a manner that would mitigate non-compliance or risk
  3. if the thing is not seized, an ongoing risk to the public may result

For example, seizure and detention may be particularly useful to control unsafe food, if necessary. It may also be useful for controlling a food animal carcass or its associated parts that has been condemned by a veterinarian inspector or inspector under their supervision when there is reason to believe that condemned material may be or has been directed to the edible food chain.

An article seized under the authority of FDA or the SFCA can be detained for such a time as may be necessary. However, detention of a thing seized under either act should be justifiably and reasonably necessary such as until any of the following occur:

• the inspector determines that the detained product meets the requirements of the applicable act and regulations
• a court ruling is issued if proceedings were instituted before the end of the detention period
• the thing is willingly forfeited, destroyed, or no longer subject to the SFCA or FDA

Seizure is not to be confused with ordering that a thing not be moved while an inspection is being conducted to determine compliance as authorized by SFCA 24(2)(d).

Operational procedure – Procedure for seizure and detention, authorizing movement and disposition

SFCA 29(c); FDA 25(c)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA and FDA under section 13(3) of the CFIA act

If the thing is perishable or if the inspector is of the opinion that the thing presents a risk of injury to human health and that its disposal is necessary to respond to the risk

Disposal of a thing may be appropriate when the thing is a food commodity which presents a risk that cannot be controlled by a treatment to eliminate or reduce the hazard.

Notice must be given to the owner or person in possession.

The expense of disposal is paid for by the owner or person in possession.

Operational procedure – Procedure for seizure and detention, authorizing movement and disposition

SFCA 29(a) and 29(b); FDA 25(a) and 25(b)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA and FDA under section 13(3) of the CFIA act

When necessary

When a thing is being seized, an inspector should take measures to ensure the location and storage conditions are appropriate for the thing. Whenever necessary, the inspector should consider ordering the thing be moved to a more appropriate storage location.

The owner or person in possession, care or control must be notified.

The expense of movement and storage is paid for by the owner or person having possession, care or control of it at the time of seizure who is ordered to store it or move it or to whom the notice is given.

Operational procedure – Procedure for seizure and detention, authorizing movement and disposition

SFCA 32(1); FDA 27.2.(1)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA and FDA under section 13(3) of the CFIA act

When an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the imported food (FDA) or food commodity (SFCA):

1. does not meet the requirements of the regulations, or
2. was imported in contravention of a provision of the SFCA , FDA or their regulations

Applies whether the food or food commodity was seized or not.

Notice must be given to the owner, importer, or person having possession care or control of the imported food or food commodity.

The expense of removal or destruction is paid for by the person to whom notice is given.

If the conditions of SFCR 18(1) are met, then the food is considered to have met the requirements of the regulations and this option should not be applied.

If removal or destruction is not carried out within the allowed time frame, the imported food or food commodity is forfeited. Refer to section 6.2.6 Forfeiture of a thing (automatic, by consent or by Minister's election).

Operational procedure – Ordering removal or destruction of unlawful food imports

CFIA act: ss. 19(1)

The designated authority is the Minister of Health.

Mandatory recall of a food commodity is appropriate when both of the following occur:

• the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a regulated product poses a risk to public, animal or plant health
• the person responsible is unable or unwilling to voluntarily remove a product from the marketplace

Most recalls in Canada are "voluntary", which means that the recalls are initiated and carried out by the manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer responsible. The CFIA works with regulated parties to ensure the effectiveness of the recall.

Operational guideline – Food incident response process

FDA 26.1; FDA 27; FDA 27.2 (3); SFCA 32(3); SFCA 34

The Minister of Health

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The Review Tribunal of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

A convicting court

A provincial superior court judge (upon application by an inspector)

The authority to dispose forfeited food under 32(3) of the SFCA is delegated to: Inspection Manager and the Director of Operations.

The timeframes and conditions associated with forfeiture vary depending on the specific provision authorizing the forfeiture.

• An imported food commodity is forfeited if it is not removed or destroyed within the specified time period or within 90 days after being notified that removal or destruction was required [SFCA 32(3)]. However, there are conditions under which an inspector may suspend or cancel the application of the forfeiture
• If the Minister chooses, a thing seized is forfeited 60 days after the seizure if the owner or person entitled to possess it is not identified [SFCA 34(1)(a)]. This provision does not apply if proceedings are instituted for a violation or an offence that relates to the seized thing
• If the Minister chooses, a thing seized is forfeited if it is not claimed within 60 days after notification that it has been released by an inspector. This provision does not apply if proceedings are instituted for a violation or an offence that relates to the seized thing
• The tribunal or convicting court may order a thing related to a violation or offence be forfeited, if the tribunal decides that a person has committed a violation or a person is convicted of an offence under the act
• If an inspector makes an application, a provincial superior court judge may order the forfeiture of a thing seized.

The Minister may direct the disposal of a thing that has been forfeited.

The owner or person having possession, care or control of the thing at the time of its seizure (if seized) is responsible for the expenses associated with disposal of the thing that has been forfeited.

In addition to forfeitures by the Minister's election, tribunal or court, the owner of a thing may also voluntarily consent to forfeit a thing seized [see SFCA 35]. In the case of FDA 27(1), the owner or the person having possession, care or control of the article at the time of its seizure may voluntarily consent to its forfeiture.

Because forfeiture is only authorized under specific circumstances involving decisions by the Minister, tribunal or court, inspectors are strongly encouraged to always consult their supervisor prior to carrying out any activities associated with forfeiture.

There is no additional guidance on performing the activities associated with forfeiture. Case-by-case consultation and collaboration with Legal Services is always required to determine when and how to apply this action as a control measure.

SFCA 24(2)(d)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA under section 13(3) the CFIA act

This inspection power is authorized for a purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance to SFCA or SFCR when an inspector is in a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an activity regulated under the SFCA is conducted or an item regulated by the act is located. The action is an inspection power that enables the inspector to control risks and is not considered as an enforcement response to non-compliance.

This action is not to be confused with seizure and detention which is only authorized when the inspector believes the item is, was used in, or was obtained in contravention to the act or a provision of the regulations.

This is an inspection power that may be used at the inspector's discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2) (d) are met. For example, this power could be used to prevent the movement of a food product while awaiting the result of a laboratory analysis required to determine compliance. Ordering that that thing be moved or not be moved may also be useful for controlling the movement of condemned food animal carcasses and their associated parts to prevent further non-compliance.

Although it is sufficient to issue the order verbally, it is recommended that the inspector record that the order was issued in a document (for example inspection report or email) provided to the regulated party. This optional written notification may be of most benefit when there is delay between issuing the order and lifting the order due to the time required to complete the inspection (for example, if it takes several days for a laboratory analysis to be completed). When issuing the order, whether verbally or in writing, the inspector should cite their authority to make the order (for example, under the authority of SFCA 24(2)(d)).

When issuing an order not to move or to restrict the movement of an item, the inspector may also affix a tag to the item so that it can be identified as an item that is the subject of an order. This type of tag serves as a visual cue to aid in communication between the inspector and the regulated party. Placing a tag on an item related to an order is not sufficient on its own. Orders must also be directly communicated verbally or in writing with the owner or person in possession, care or control of the item. Removal of these tags by the regulated party is not an offence, however, the regulated party must comply with the verbal or written order provided by the inspector.

It should be noted that this power does not allow an inspector to order the movement of a thing from one address to another. The powers of inspection listed in section 24 of the SFCA list the powers available to an inspector entering a place and must be used at that place.

The following tags are available to identify an item subject to an inspector's order that the item is not to be moved or that its movement is restricted:

CFIA/ACIA 5874 – Tag – Movement restricted as ordered by inspector (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by inspectors when ordering that an item's movement be restricted to a particular part of the place pending completion of an inspection.

CFIA/ACIA 5875 – Tag in gangs of 3 – Movement restricted as ordered by inspector (green) (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by slaughter inspectors when ordering that carcasses/parts be presented for veterinary inspection.

CFIA/ACIA 5876 – Tag in gangs of 5 – Movement restricted as ordered by inspector (brown) (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by slaughter inspectors when ordering that carcasses/parts be presented for veterinary inspection.

CFIA/ACIA 5877 – Tag – Do not move as ordered by inspector (pink) (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by inspectors when ordering that an item not be moved while awaiting the results of laboratory analysis needed to determine compliance.

CFIA/ACIA 5878 – Tag in gangs of 3 – Do not move as ordered by inspector (blue) (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by slaughter inspectors when ordering that carcasses/parts not be moved pending completion of an inspection.

CFIA/ACIA 5879 – Tag in gangs of 5 – Do not move as ordered by inspector (purple) (internal access only). For example, this tag could be used by slaughter inspectors when ordering that carcasses/parts not be moved pending completion of an inspection.

There is no additional guidance on ordering that an item be moved or not be moved. This is an inspector power that can be used at the inspector's discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2) (d) are met.

SFCA 24(2)(i)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA under section 13(3) the CFIA act

This inspection power is authorized when an inspector is in a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an activity regulated by the SFCA is taking place or an item regulated by the act is located. This action is authorized for purposes related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with SFCA or SFCR. This action is an inspection power that enables the inspector to control risks and is not considered as an enforcement response to non-compliance.

This is an inspection power that may be used at the inspectors discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2)(i) are met. For example, this power could be used to stop a slaughter or canning operation to perform inspection activities or prevent a non-compliance for occurring while the inspector is onsite. The inspector may benefit from using this power when an activity must be stopped to allow access for an inspection. Such as when:

• the inspection cannot be effectively conducted while the activity is ongoing
• whether there is a safety issue for the inspector or other persons present or not, the activity must be stopped to enable the inspection to be carried out

It may also be applied at the inspectors discretion if, by stopping the activity, the inspector recognizes that non-compliance could be stopped or prevented.

This power is not intended for stopping an activity beyond the immediate time needed to verify or prevent non-compliance. Once non-compliance is detected, if the inspector is of the opinion that the activity cannot be resumed due to the inability of the regulated party to take effective corrective measures, enforcement responses such as licence suspension could be considered.

Although it is sufficient to issue the order verbally, it is recommended that the inspector document that the order was issued in an inspection report or other document (for example inspection report or email) provided to the regulated party after the conclusion of the inspection activity. When issuing the order, whether verbally or in writing, the inspector should cite their authority to make the order (for example, under the authority of SFCA 24(2)(i)).

There is no additional guidance on ordering the start or stop of an activity. This is an inspector power that can be used at the inspector's discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2)(i) are met.

SFCA 24 (2)(j)

Persons designated as inspectors for the SFCA under section 13(3) of the CFIA act

This inspection power is authorized for a purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance to SFCA or SFCR when an inspector is in a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an activity regulated under the SFCA is conducted or an item regulated by the act is located. The action is an inspection power that enables the inspector to control risks and is not considered an enforcement response to non-compliance.

This is an inspection power that may be used at the inspector's discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2) (j) are met. For example, this power could be used to prevent all access to a place or part of a place while an inspector is conducting a test, collecting a sample or completing an inspection to determine compliance of the place or anything in it. Limiting access could be used, for example, if an inspector determines that, to prevent the production of non-compliant food, the access to a place should be limited to purposes such as cleaning or sanitation of the place or anything in it (for example, a piece of equipment).

Although it is sufficient to issue the order verbally, it is recommended that the inspector record that the order was issued in a document (for example inspection report or email) provided to the regulated party. This optional written notification may be of most benefit when there is delay between issuing the order and lifting the order (for example, if it may take some time for the activities necessary to prevent a non-compliance to be completed by the regulated party). When issuing the order, whether verbally or in writing, the inspector should cite their authority to make the order (for example, under the authority of SFCA 24(2)(j)).

When prohibiting or limiting access to all or part of a place or anything in a place, the inspector may also affix a tag to the place or thing so that it can be identified as being the subject of an order. This type of tag serves as a visual cue to aid in communication between the inspector and the regulated party. Placing a tag on a place or thing related to an order is not sufficient on its own. Orders must also be directly communicated verbally or in writing to the regulated party. Removal of these tags by the regulated party is not an offence, however, the regulated party must comply with the verbal or written order provided by the inspector.

The following tags are available to identify a place, part of a place or thing subject to an inspector's order that access to it is prohibited or limited:

• CFIA/ACIA 5872 – Tag – Access limited as ordered by Inspector (teal) (internal access only)
• CFIA/ACIA 5873 – Tag – Access prohibited as ordered by inspector (orange) (internal access only)

There is no additional guidance on prohibiting or limiting access. This is an inspector power that can be used at the inspector's discretion anytime the requirements of SFCA 24(1) and SFCA 24(2) (j) are met.

SFCA 20(3) and 20(4)

The designated authority is the Minister of Health

The authority has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Director, National Centre for Permissions

Whenever the Minister (Minister's delegate) believes the condition is appropriate

For example, this action may be appropriate in specific cases where the additional condition is required to prevent risk to human, plant or animal health or trade.

There is no additional guidance on adding conditions to a licence or registration to control a risk. This option may be applied at the discretion of the designated authority responsible for issuing a licence or registration.

SFCA 48; SFCR 17(2) and 17(5)

The designated authority is the Minister of Health
The authority has been delegated to: Persons designated as inspectors and veterinary inspectors for the SFCA under section 13(3) the CFIA Act

Whenever the conditions for issuance are not met

The SFCA and SFCR do not specifically identify the authority to refuse or cancel a certificate or other similar document. However, SFCR does describe the conditions for issuance of a certificate. When those conditions are not met, the CFIA inspector or veterinary inspector does not have the authority to issue the certificate. Issuing a certificate when not authorized would be contrary to the CFIA Code of conduct.

Refer to section "Export permission" on the Merlin website for procedures to issue a food export certificate (by commodity) and procedures for replacing and cancelling a food export certificate.

SFCR 32(1), SFCR 32(2)

The designated authority is the Minister of Health
The authority has been delegated to: Director of Operations in the region responsible for verifying compliance of the licence holder and Director of Operations responsible for the National Centre for Permissions

When the licence holder is unable to conduct an activity identified in the licence at an establishment identified in the licence. This action may be appropriate in a variety of situations such as a fire or flood at an establishment or a lack of equipment, shortage of employees or utility cut-off (for example, no electricity, no water, etc).

A case-by-case assessment, using relevant information, should be conducted to determine whether the licence holder is, in fact, unable to conduct an activity. For example:

• the partial destruction of an establishment by fire may affect only 1 activity and not necessarily all the activities identified in the licence

In cases involving a lack of incoming inputs, a temporary shut-down due to a lack of business or circumstances of insolvency or bankruptcy, consultation with financial experts may be required.

Amending a licence due to inability to conduct an activity may be particularly useful when circumstances affect the licence holder's ability to conduct an activity to the point where food operations are compromised and the licence holder does not request amendment pursuant to SFCR 28(1) or surrender their licence pursuant to SFCR 34.

The Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the licence holder in writing when an amendment is made to their licence and the effective date of the amendment. If the Minister (Minister's delegate) amends a licence, its expiry date remains unchanged.

Operational guideline: Supplemental guidance for Safe Food for Canadians licence action decision makers

This letter is not specified in legislation. It is an administrative enforcement action.

It is recommended that the inspection supervisor or inspection manager sign the letter. However, since this is an administrative enforcement action, alternatives are possible.

Since the letter of non-compliance is an administrative enforcement action, there are no specific requirements for when it can be issued. It can be issued on its own or along with an inspection report or a request for a meeting with a regulated party. However, it should not be issued when more stringent enforcement actions such as suspension/cancellation, AMPs or prosecution are already being considered.

It may be appropriate in situations such as where:

• the non-compliance has not resulted, or is not likely to result, in serious or very serious harm (such as health or safety risks, or marketplace deception)
• the information on the history and intent of the non-compliance indicate that it was not deliberate
• the inspector believes that a letter of non-compliance will have the appropriate deterrent effect and will compel the regulated party to correct any outstanding non-compliances
• the regulated party has an otherwise good compliance history

Operational procedure: Issuing a letter of non-compliance

Meeting with the regulated party is not specified in legislation. It is an administrative enforcement action.

Regional management may initiate or take part in such a meeting, as per area operational procedures.

A meeting with a regulated party may be appropriate in instances where a regulated party has resisted taking corrective actions to address non-compliance, if previous enforcement action(s) have not been effective (for example; letter of non-compliance), or if CFIA staff deem the meeting appropriate in light of the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance (for example; severity, intent). In the enforcement continuum, this meeting generally occurs following a letter of non-compliance and prior to initiating more stringent enforcement actions.

This action is considered more formal than the regular / occasional discussions between inspection staff and regulated parties.

This action should be documented by CFIA (refer to Operational guidance below) and should result in a clear commitment from the regulated party to correct the non-compliance.

This meeting should not be confused with the requirement for an opportunity to be heard that is required prior to cancellation of a licence.

Operational procedure: Conducting a meeting with a regulated party

SFCA 22, SFCR 35, 36, 37, and 38

The designated authority is the Minister of Health

The authority for SFCA 22 and SFCR 35, 36 and 38 has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Director, National Centre for Permissions

The authority for SFCR 37 has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Senior Director

As identified in SFCR 35, grounds for suspension are the following:

• the licence holder does not comply with any provision of the SFCA, other than section 15, or with any provision of the SFCR, the FDA or the FDR
• the licence holder is in default of payment of any fee related to the licence that is set out in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Fees Notice
• the Minister (Minister's delegate) is of the opinion that a risk of injury to human health may result if the licence holder continues to conduct an activity that is identified in the licence

Suspension is not an option when the only grounds under consideration are that the licence holder was non-compliant with SFCA 15 (false or misleading statements or information) which is grounds for cancellation.

A licence may be suspended when a licence holder, having been issued an inspection report or other written report identifying the grounds for suspension and a date by which corrective action must be taken to avoid suspension, fails to take corrective action by that date. However, if the Minister (Minister's delegate) is of the opinion that a risk of injury to human health may result if the licence holder continues to conduct an activity that is identified in the licence, the Minister (Minister's delegate) may suspend the licence immediately after the licence holder is provided with an inspection report or other written report identifying the grounds for suspension and without providing additional time to allow for corrective actions.

Suspension may be most appropriate when a letter of non-compliance or meeting with the regulated party has not been effective and where grounds for cancellation have not been met. Although preferable, it is not essential that these alternative enforcement actions be taken prior to suspension. It is important to note that as long as the grounds for suspension are met, the speed of escalation along the enforcement continuum can be adjusted to align with the harm, history and intent of the specific case.

Prior to suspension, SFCR 36(1) requires that the inspection report or other written report issued to the regulated party identifying the grounds for suspension and date by which corrective action must be taken also includes a statement that indicates that the licence may be suspended if corrective action is not taken by the date specified.

To carry out a suspension, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the licence holder in writing of the suspension and date on which it takes effect or, in the case of a suspension under SFCR 37(1), that it takes effect immediately.

The suspension must be lifted when the Minister (Minister's delegate) determines that corrective actions have been taken.

During a suspension, the licence holder may not conduct any activity for which the licence was issued and has been suspended. The licence holder may continue to conduct any unrelated activity that it would be permitted to perform without a licence subject to any other requirements of the SFCR that apply to that activity. If more than 1 physical location for conducting activities has been indicated on the licence, the licence holder may not conduct activities for which the licence was issued in any of the locations listed on the suspended licence.

This action is separate from the suspension of a post-mortem examination program or post-mortem defect management program authorization which is described in section 6.3.6.

Operational procedures – Procedures for suspending and lifting the suspension of a Safe Food for Canadians licence

SFCA 22; SFCR 39 and 40

The designated authority is the Minister of Health

The authority has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Director, National Centre for Permissions

As identified in SFCR 39, grounds for cancellation include any of the following:

• the licence holder fails to take corrective action within 90 days after the day on which the licence was suspended, unless a longer period is granted by the Minister (Minister's delegate) at the written request of the licence holder
• the licence holder continues to conduct an activity that is identified in their licence while the licence is suspended
• the licence holder or any of their directors or officers is convicted of an offence under the SFCA or the FDA
• the licence holder does not comply with any provision of SFCA, other than section 15, or with any provision of the SFCR, the FDA or the FDR and, since its issuance or renewal, the licence(i) has already been suspended for non-compliance with that provision, or(ii) has already been suspended twice
• the licence holder was not in compliance with section 15 of the SFCA at the time of their application for the issuance, renewal or amendment of the licence or at any time during the period of validity of the licence

Inspection staff should recommend that the Minister (Minister's delegate) consider cancellation (along with any other available enforcement options) whenever any of the grounds for cancellation are met.

Specifically, following receipt of a recommendation for licence cancellation on the grounds of a non-compliance to SFCA 15, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must determine based on the information provided whether:

• the licence holder made a false or misleading statement or provided false or misleading information
• the statement was made or the information was provided to a person exercising powers or performing duties or functions under the SFCA and
• the statement made or the information provided related to a matter under a provision of the SFCA or the SFCR, including in respect of an application for a licence

Once the Minister (Minister's delegate) is satisfied that grounds for cancellation of the licence exist [SFCR 39], the Minister (Minister's delegate) should factor in the harm, history and intent of the regulated party when deciding if cancellation is the best enforcement approach.

Prior to cancellation, the licence holder must be notified in writing by the Minister (Minister's delegate) of the grounds for the cancellation and be provided with an opportunity to be heard in respect of the cancellation.

To carry out the cancellation, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the licence holder in writing of the cancellation and the date on which it takes effect.

Once cancellation occurs, the regulated party needs to re-apply as a new applicant for a licence should they wish to resume the prescribed activity. In those circumstances, inspection staff should conduct a pre-licence verification of the applicant to verify that the preventive control plan (PCP) complies with all regulatory requirements and with careful attention to the requirements where the applicant has a demonstrated history of non-compliance.

Operational procedures – Procedures for cancellation of a Safe Food for Canadians licence

SFCR 30

The designated authority is the Minister of Health
The authority has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Director, National Centre for Permissions

Grounds for refusing to issue, renew or amend a licence include if, in the 5 years before the application is made, the applicant or their directors or officers:

• have had a licence suspended or cancelled, or
• have been convicted of an offence under the SFCA or FDA

The Minister (Minister's delegate) may also refuse to renew or amend a licence if the applicant is in default of payment of any fee related to the licence that is fixed under the CFIA act.

The conditions for issuing, renewing or amending a licence are described in SFCR 29. At the time of application, the Minister (Minister's delegate) could conclude that an applicant who does not meet the applicable conditions of SFCR 29 will not be issued a licence.

The application for issuance, renewal or amendment can still be refused as described in SFCR 30 even if the conditions of SFCR 29 are met.

When a technical review is requested by the National Centre for Permissions, inspectors may recommend that the Director of the National Centre for Permissions refuse to issue a licence by applying the process described in the Operational procedure: Pre-licence verification (accessible only on the Government of Canada network – RDIMS 12646434). Similarly, inspectors may recommend refusal to amend a licence by applying the Operational guideline: Licence amendment verification (accessible only on the Government of Canada network – RDIMS 12714242).

SFCR 161, 162, 163 and 164

The designated authority is the Minister of Health

The authority has been delegated to: Director of Operations and Senior Director

Grounds for suspension of these authorizations include any of the following:

• the licence holder does not comply with their post-mortem examination program or post-mortem defect management program
• the licence holder does not comply with any provision of the SFCA or SFCR
• the Minister (Minister's delegate) is of the opinion that a risk of injury to human health may result if the licence holder continues to conduct the program

A post-mortem examination program authorization or a post-mortem defect management program may be suspended when a licence holder, having been issued an inspection report identifying the grounds for suspension and a date by which the corrective action must be taken, fails to take the corrective action by that date. However, if the Minister (Minister's delegate) is of the opinion that a risk of injury to human health may result if the licence holder continues to conduct the post-mortem examination program or post-mortem defect management program, the Minister (Minister's delegate) may suspend the authorization immediately after the licence holder is provided with an inspection report and without providing additional time to allow for corrective actions.

To carry out the suspension, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the licence holder in writing of the suspension of the authorization and date on which it takes effect or, in the case of a suspension under SFCR 163(1), that it takes effect immediately.

The suspension must be lifted when the Minister (Minister's delegate) determines that corrective actions have been taken.

The suspension of an authorization to conduct a post-mortem examination program or a post-mortem defect management program is separate from the suspension of a licence to operate. When a post-mortem examination program authorization or a post-mortem defect management authorization is suspended, the licence holder's licence to operate is still valid unless there are also grounds to suspend the licence itself. If such grounds are suspected, section 6.3.3 Licence suspension should also be consulted.

Operational procedure – Procedure for suspending and lifting the suspension of an authorization to conduct a post-mortem program

SFCR 362 and 363

The conformity verification body may refuse to recommend an applicant's accreditation.

If the applicant requests a review of the decision to refuse the accreditation, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food must decide to confirm or not the decision of the conformity verification body.

This authority has been delegated to: Director, Food Import and Export Division

An organic certification body is refused accreditation when:

• a conformity verification body refuses to recommend an applicant's accreditation and the applicant does not request a review by the Minister in the 30 days following the day they received the notice
• A review of the refusal by a conformity verification body is conducted by the Minister and confirms the decision

Any considerations for deciding to refuse to recommend an applicant's accreditation are determined by the conformity verification body. If the decision is reviewed by the Minister, on request by the applicant, the Minister decides to confirm or not the decision of the conformity verification body.

There is no operational guidance because this activity is not conducted by the inspectorate. Oversight resides with International Affairs Branch. This content is included for information only.

SFCR 364

The designated authority is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on recommendation by a conformity verification body.

The authority has been delegated to: Director, Food Import and Export Division

The Minister (Minister's delegate) must suspend a certification body's accreditation when recommended by a conformity verification body and the certifying body has not complied with any provision of the SFCA, Part 13 of SFCR or ISO/IEC 17065.

Suspension must not occur unless both of the following conditions were met:

• the certification body was provided with a report that sets out the grounds for the suspension and the period within which corrective action must be taken in order to avoid the suspension
• the certification body failed to take corrective action within that period or, within any period of time authorized by the conformity verification body if an extension was granted

Suspension must not be considered for non-compliance with SFCA 15 (false or misleading statements or information) because this non-compliance is grounds for cancelation of the accreditation. Any further considerations for deciding if suspension is warranted are determined by the conformity verification body.

To carry out the suspension, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the certification body in writing of the suspension and the date on which it takes effect.

A suspension of an accreditation remains in effect until the Minister determines, on recommendation of the conformity verification body, that corrective action has been taken.

There is no operational guidance because this activity is not conducted by the inspectorate. Oversight resides with International Affairs Branch. This content is included for information only.

SFCR 365

The designated authority is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on recommendation by a conformity verification body.

The authority has been delegated to: Director, Food Import and Export Division

On the recommendation of a conformity verification body, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must cancel an accreditation if the certification body does any of the following:

• fails to take corrective action within 30 days after the day on which the accreditation was suspended
• was not in compliance with section 15 of the SFCA at the time of the application for the accreditation or any time during the period of validity of the accreditation
• continues, while their accreditation is suspended, to accept applications for certification, to make determinations under SFCR 345(1) or 348(1), to suspend certifications under SFCR 349(1) or to cancel certifications under SFCR 350(1)

Prior to cancelation, the certification body must be notified in writing of the grounds for the cancellation and be provided with an opportunity to be heard in respect of the cancellation.

To carry out the cancellation, the Minister (Minister's delegate) must notify the certification body in writing of the cancellation and the date on which it takes effect.

There is no operational guidance because this activity is not conducted by the inspectorate. Oversight resides with International Affairs Branch. This content is included of information only.

AAAMPA

The following CFIA staff may issue notices of violation for non-compliance with SFCA or SFCR: persons designated pursuant to section 6 of the AAAMPA

Notices of violation may be issued for violations of the SFCA or SFCR that are identified in Schedule 1 to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations.

Notices of violation are not available for violations of the FDA or FDR.

Considerations for issuing an NOV include:

• harm or potential harm of the non-compliance, compliance history and intent
• to which person should the NOV be issued (an actual person, a legal entity or both)
• whether to issue a NOV with or without a penalty
• whether a NOV may not be appropriate and an alternative enforcement response such as a prosecution should be considered

• Operational guideline: Enforcing the Safe Food for Canadians Act and Regulations utilizing administrative monetary penalties
• Operational guideline: Referring non-compliance for potential enforcement through issuance of a Notice of Violation under the Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) regime
• Q & A – Referring non-compliance for potential enforcement through issuance of an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) (accessible only on the Government of Canada network – RDIMS 11255565)

SFCA 39; FDA 31.1

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) has the responsibility for all prosecutions relating to the acts administered by the CFIA.

The CFIA may recommend prosecution to PPSC where non-compliance has resulted in situations involving , but not limited to, the following:

• death of, or injury to, a person and the evidence indicates that the death or injury was directly attributed to failure to comply with legislation enforced by CFIA
• willful, reckless, or negligent actions of the regulated party that pose a health and safety risk to humans, animals or plants
• willful, reckless, or negligent actions of the regulated party that mislead the consumer, misrepresent the product or constitute marketplace deception
• the prohibited sale of a product
• the forging of, altering or tampering with an inspection certificate, permits, report of analysis or other official CFIA document
• the obstruction of or interference with an inspector carrying out activities under legislation enforced by CFIA
• the movement of or interference with anything seized and detained without having received prior permission from an inspector
• refusal to comply with a recall order
• a conviction for a previous, similar offence
• based on past history of non-compliance, other enforcement actions have not had, or are not likely to have, the appropriate deterrent effect and more severe action is warranted

Where recommending prosecution is deemed appropriate by the CFIA, Area EIS prepares and forwards briefs of evidence to the appropriate office of the PPSC with the recommendation that charges be laid. It is clearly recognized that the discretion to initiate a prosecution rests with the PPSC.

No guidance for inspectors.

Preparing Briefs of Evidence – for EIS specialists (to be developed)