Ontario ag-gag provisions struck down
Court Decision
Blocked
April 2, 2024
Summary
On 2 April 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) released Animal Justice et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 1753, a constitutional challenge to provisions under Ontario’s Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and its General Regulation O. Reg. 701/20. Justice Markus Koehnen held that section 9 of O. Reg. 701/20 — which regulated the use and disclosure of recordings or information obtained in agricultural and animal agriculture facilities — and specified portions of section 12 infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were not justified under section 1 (the Oakes test). These provisions were declared of no force or effect. The Court upheld sections 5(4) and 6(2) of the Act, which address interference with farm animals and animals in transport, finding them to minimally impair expression and therefore saved under section 1; trespass and interference prohibitions in those sections remained enforceable. An initial suspension of the declaration of invalidity was lifted by a 2 May 2024 order (signed with the Attorney General’s consent), making the invalidation of the impugned regulatory provisions operative immediately. The applicants were Animal Justice and two individual activists; the respondent was the Attorney General of Ontario. The constitutional challenge had been filed in 2021 and argued in October 2023. On 2 June 2026, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General’s appeal and fully reinstated the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and O. Reg. 701/20, ruling that the legislation does not violate Charter rights and overturning the 2024 Superior Court decision. The provisions previously declared invalid were restored to operative effect. Animal Justice publicly indicated it was considering seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; no further appellate decision has been reported in available sources.
Background Context
Ontario’s Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and brought into force in September 2020, created new offences related to trespass on “animal protection zones” at farms and animal processing facilities and prohibitions on gaining access under false pretences. Critics including Animal Justice described the Act as an “ag-gag” law designed to deter undercover investigations into animal agriculture. Alberta had enacted Canada’s first ag-gag law in November 2019 — documented in a separate Development record. Animal Justice initiated a constitutional challenge in 2021 alleging violations of Charter sections 2(b) (freedom of expression) and 2(c) (freedom of peaceful assembly). The October 2023 hearing involved contextual evidence about industrialisation of animal husbandry, accepted farming practices, and the role of undercover investigations in informing the public about on-farm and slaughterhouse conditions. The judgment specifically referenced piglet killing methods (“piglet thumping”) as an example of practices documented through undercover investigation. Beef Farmers of Ontario publicly responded to the decision, characterising the Superior Court ruling as failing to account for the legislation’s biosecurity and safety rationale.
System Impact
Direction
Neutral / Administrative
Type
Alters Legal Basis
Significance
Moderate
The Ontario Superior Court (Divisional Court) issued 2024 ONSC 1753 on 2 April 2024, declaring section 9 and specified portions of section 12 of O. Reg. 701/20 unconstitutional. The initial suspension of the declaration was lifted by 2 May 2024 order, making the invalidation operative immediately. During the period from 2 May 2024 until the appellate reversal, section 9’s restrictions on use and disclosure of recordings and information obtained in agricultural facilities and the specified section 12 provisions were of no force or effect in Ontario. Sections 5(4) and 6(2) of the Act, governing interference with farm animals and animals in transport, were upheld and remained enforceable throughout. The Attorney General of Ontario appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, fully reinstating the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and O. Reg. 701/20, finding that the legislation does not violate Charter rights. The provisions previously declared invalid were restored to operative effect. Animal Justice indicated it was considering seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Legal representation for the applicants included Stockwoods LLP (Andrea Gonsalves and Frederick Schumann) and Animal Justice lawyers Kaitlyn Mitchell and Scott Tinney. The case is the first Canadian constitutional challenge to an ag-gag law to reach judgment at the Superior Court level.
Anticipated Effects
If Animal Justice obtains leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal, the invalidation of section 9 and the specified section 12 provisions would be restored, reopening legal space for undercover investigations and disclosure of information obtained through employment at Ontario agricultural operations.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s 2026 reinstatement of the full statutory scheme, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and O. Reg. 701/20 would be settled as constitutionally valid in their entirety, establishing national precedent on the constitutional permissibility of ag-gag legislation in Canada.
Whether any undercover investigations were conducted or information disclosed during the operative period between 2 May 2024 and the Court of Appeal’s reinstatement — and whether those activities produced documented exposures of Ontario agricultural facility conditions — is not established in available sources.
Significance Rationale
Assigned Neutral / Administrative (impact direction) because the decision invalidated information-control regulatory provisions governing undercover investigations and disclosures in Ontario’s animal agriculture sector. It did not mandate changes in animal production volumes, facility numbers, or the scale of animal agriculture operations. The remaining trespass and interference provisions stayed in place, and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2026 reinstatement of the full statutory scheme confirms that no documented system-level scale change in exploitation occurred.
Assigned Alters Legal Basis (impact type) because the Superior Court’s declaration of invalidity changed what was legally in force — declaring specified regulatory provisions unconstitutional and of no force or effect, temporarily altering the legal basis governing information-gathering and disclosure at Ontario agricultural operations during the period between 2 May 2024 and the appellate reversal.
Assigned Moderate significance because the decision applied across Ontario’s entire animal agriculture sector regulated by the Act, covering farms, slaughterhouses, and animal transport operations provincially. The scope of the struck provisions — including all undercover investigation and disclosure restrictions in O. Reg. 701/20 — was substantive within its jurisdiction. However, the decision was operative for a limited period before being reversed by the Court of Appeal on 2 June 2026, and no quantified changes in investigations, enforcement actions, or facility conditions attributable to the brief operative period are documented in sources consulted.
Impact direction is Neutral / Administrative; the trajectory sentence is not applicable.
Key Actors
Justice Markus Koehnen of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) authored 2024 ONSC 1753. Animal Justice (represented by Stockwoods LLP and its own lawyers) and two individual applicants brought the constitutional challenge. The Attorney General of Ontario was the respondent and subsequently appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the full statutory scheme on 2 June 2026. Beef Farmers of Ontario publicly responded in support of the Act. Alberta ag-gag legislation (separate Development record) was the Canadian predecessor to Ontario’s law.
Notice an inaccuracy or omission?
If you believe information on this page is incorrect, incomplete, or missing important context, you may submit a suggested correction for review.