The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is facing mounting questions about its decision-making process after carrying out a major cull of ostriches at a British Columbia farm. The action came following the Supreme Court of Canada's refusal to hear the farm's appeal against the order.
Supreme Court Decision Precedes Major Culling Operation
On Thursday, November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear Universal Ostrich Farms' appeal against a CFIA order to cull more than 300 of its ostriches. The decision effectively ended the farm's legal options and cleared the way for the government agency to proceed with the massive animal removal.
Photographs from the scene showed CFIA employees wearing full protective suits as they interacted with the large birds near a specially constructed cull enclosure. The farm, located in Edgewood, B.C., had been fighting the order for months before the highest court's decision sealed its fate.
Farmers and Advocates Seek Clearer Answers
While the CFIA maintains the cull was necessary for animal health reasons, the farming community and agricultural advocates are expressing frustration over what they describe as insufficient explanations. Many are questioning whether less extreme measures could have been implemented to address whatever health concerns prompted the drastic action.
The case has raised broader questions about protocols for dealing with disease outbreaks in non-traditional livestock operations and the transparency of decision-making processes when such significant actions are taken against agricultural businesses.
Broader Implications for Canadian Agriculture
This incident at Universal Ostrich Farms represents one of the largest single culling operations involving alternative livestock in recent Canadian history. The outcome is being closely watched by other specialty animal farmers across the country who are concerned about similar regulatory actions affecting their operations.
Agricultural industry representatives are calling for more detailed guidelines and clearer communication from regulatory bodies when health concerns arise. They argue that better understanding of the specific risks and more collaborative approaches could prevent similar situations in the future.
The CFIA has stated that it followed established protocols throughout the process, but acknowledges the difficulty of such operations for all involved parties. As the agricultural community processes this event, calls for regulatory reform and improved farmer-agency relationships are growing louder.
