Supreme Court’s Refusal of the Ostrich Farm Appeal - special request
A tragedy and necessary correction.
Disclaimer
I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.
I surround, protect, purify and make harmless the following in-formation.
Please read conclusions at the end.
The bigger picture
By Jane Scharf
Nov 12, 2025
The Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to hear the Universal Ostrich Farm appeal may seem like a disappointment — but in reality, it was both a tragedy and a necessary correction in the long struggle to restore lawful governance in Canada.
⚖️ A Travesty of Justice — and a Preventable One
The ostrich farmers in this case are, by every indication, sincere, compassionate people who loved and cared for their animals. Their dedication was met with a travesty of justice under an unlawful CFIA policy that allows warrantless entry, mass destruction of property, and no right of appeal — actions that strike at the heart of Canada’s legal tradition.
That policy is unconstitutional and unlawful — not only under section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law — but also under common law, which for centuries has recognized property rights and due process as fundamental and inalienable.
These protections — rooted in Magna Carta (1215) — were carried into Canadian law through the common-law system and reaffirmed in countless judgments. They stand as a cornerstone of the rule of law and the right to security of one’s home, land, and livelihood.
🚫 The Wrong Legal Strategy
Sadly, the legal team leading this case did not raise these rights in their court submissions. Instead, they pursued an argument for an exemption — asking the court to make ostriches an exception to the CFIA’s culling policy.
That approach was doomed from the start. If the CFIA policy itself were lawful, the court could not override it to carve out exemptions. The real issue was not whether ostriches should be spared, but whether the CFIA policy itself is lawful — and it is not.
The Federal Court ruled it had no power to overturn the CFIA’s administrative decision. That is technically correct — because the legal team never asked the Court to review the validity of the policy itself. Had that been argued, the Court would have been required to determine whether the policy violates the Bill of Rights and common-law due process.
Adding to the irony, a press release issued this week finally acknowledged that property rights under section 1(a) were violated — a statement that is accurate in substance — but those same arguments were never made in the court filings. That disconnect between public messaging and legal action reveals the depth of the strategic failure.
🌾 A Hidden Blessing in Disguise
While it may feel discouraging, the Supreme Court’s refusal was actually beneficial. If the appeal had been accepted in its flawed form, the farmers would almost certainly have lost — and that loss would have created the appearance that Canadians no longer have property rights or due process protections.
It is better that the case was not heard until it can be presented properly — with the CFIA policy itself placed squarely on trial for violating long-standing legal principles.
🛡️ The Path Forward
The next farmer affected by this unlawful CFIA framework must challenge the policy itself, not merely the enforcement action. That case must invoke:
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and
Common-law due process and property rights, as part of the continuous and unbroken chain of English-Canadian legal tradition.
Only then can the courts — and the Canadian public — see clearly that our rights still exist, and they can still be enforced.
When the case finally reaches the Supreme Court in the correct format, it can — and must — reaffirm that farmers’ rights to property, livelihood, and due process are still protected under Canadian law.
📚 Key Legal References
Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix III, s. 1(a): Right to life, liberty, and enjoyment of property except by due process of law.
Common Law Tradition: Property and due process rights recognized since Magna Carta (1215) and upheld through Canadian jurisprudence.
Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121 — No government official may arbitrarily destroy a person’s livelihood.
Attorney General v. Power (SCC, 2024) — Reaffirmed Parliamentary supremacy and the enduring force of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 — Common-law remedies, including habeas corpus, remain available to review unlawful administrative acts.
Continues at https://substack.com/home/post/p-178686284
Conclusions
I spoke with a former justice of the peace who also stated the lawyer for Universal Ostrich Farm had the legal right to deny CFIA access to the farm.
The planet is under martial rule [occupied], which renders our laws silent. In other words there is no rule of law, no due process, no Constitution and no Bill of Rights unless the occupiers say so.
I am unable to offer feed back to Jane b/c comments are turned off at her Substack.
Facebook - request
Despite martial rule, it may help if everyone gathering Nov 22, 2025 is informed of the bigger picture. I am not on Facebook b/c the truth is shadow banned and I was repeatedly locked out of my account.
If you have a Facebook account, would you please post Jane’s Substack link above? It’s okay if a number of you post it b/c people view at different times, and the more people who see it the better to neutralize angst. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1317010423067206/permalink/1317891432979105/
More details https://www.ourgreaterdestiny.ca/p/canada-coast-to-coast-farmers-unite
TY!
Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
action