Date: 20160322  
Docket: P-2-14  
Citation: 2016 FC 343  
AN APPEAL TO THE ASSESSOR  
PURSUANT TO THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT  
Ottawa, Ontario, March 22, 2016  
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell, Deputy Assessor  
BETWEEN:  
WILLOW HOLLOW GAME RANCH LTD.  
Appellant  
and  
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE  
AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA  
Respondent  
I. THE APPEAL......................................................................................................................... 3  
II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4  
III.  
IV.  
ROLE OF THE COURT..................................................................................................... 6  
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 7  
A. Overview............................................................................................................................. 7  
Page: 2  
B. The Facts............................................................................................................................. 8  
V. DECISION UNDER APPEAL ............................................................................................. 11  
VI.  
LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 13  
A. The Legislation ................................................................................................................. 13  
B. The Common Procedures Manual .................................................................................... 19  
VII. THE ISSUE....................................................................................................................... 25  
VIII. MR. WEHRKAMP’S ROLE ............................................................................................ 25  
IX.  
ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................................. 27  
A. Appellant........................................................................................................................... 27  
B. Respondent........................................................................................................................ 30  
X. EVIDENCE........................................................................................................................... 32  
A. Appellant’s Witnesses....................................................................................................... 32  
Mr. Randy Wehrkamp Highlights...................................................................................... 32  
(a) General.................................................................................................................... 32  
(b) The Elk Industry in Saskatchewan.......................................................................... 32  
(c) The Nature of the Appellant’s Elk Business........................................................... 34  
(d) The Evaluation Process........................................................................................... 39  
(e) Problems with the CFIA Evaluation ....................................................................... 43  
Mr. Blaine Weber Highlights............................................................................................. 60  
(a) Background and Experience ................................................................................... 60  
(b) Market Information................................................................................................. 61  
Mr. Terry Moorman Highlights ......................................................................................... 66  
(a) Experience............................................................................................................... 66  
Page: 3  
(b) Depopulation........................................................................................................... 67  
(c) Age and Value......................................................................................................... 70  
B. Respondent’s Witnesses.................................................................................................... 71  
Dr. Graham’s Evidence – Highlights.................................................................................... 71  
(a) Background and Experience ................................................................................... 71  
(b) The WHGR Evaluation........................................................................................... 72  
Dr. Bischop’s Evidence – Highlights.................................................................................. 122  
(a) Background and Experience ................................................................................. 122  
(b) The WHGR Evaluation......................................................................................... 124  
XI.  
ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 135  
XII. EVALUATION............................................................................................................... 179  
XIII. COSTS............................................................................................................................ 180  
Schedule “A”............................................................................................................................... 190  
JUDGMENT AND REASONS  
I.  
THE APPEAL  
[1]  
This is an appeal by Willow Hollow Game Ranch Ltd. [Appellant or WHGR], pursuant  
to s 56(1) of the Health of Animals Act, SC 1990, c 21 [Act], of the level of compensation  
awarded in accordance with the valuation appraisal of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency  
[CFIA] of May 2, 2014, for the destruction of 266 of the Appellants bull elk.  
 
Page: 4  
II.  
INTRODUCTION  
[2]  
The evidence before me in this appeal reveals that the fallout from chronic wasting  
disease [CWD] can be both economically and emotionally devastating for a producer. The  
rebuilding of an elk herd following depopulation cannot be done quickly, and may require years  
of hard work and significant reserves of intelligence, experience and mental and physical  
tenacity.  
[3]  
In order to assist with the rebuilding process, the government of Canada has provided a  
compensation scheme under the Act, but this scheme is not fully comprehensive and it often  
comes nowhere near to covering the full losses that occur when CWD strikes. The compensation  
scheme under the Act is limited to the market value that the destroyed animal would have had at  
the time of its evaluation by the Minister if it had not been required to be destroyed, minus the  
value of its carcass. And even this amount is subject to maximums established under the  
regulations for the particular kind of animal that has been destroyed.  
[4]  
A compensation scheme for destroyed animals is socially justifiable because when an  
animal is found to have CWD, the whole proximate herd is destroyed even though, as occurred  
in the present case, it is subsequently found that only a few animals had actually contracted the  
disease. The evidence before me is that this obliterative approach to controlling CWD (one that  
is extremely costly to the producer involved) has had little impact upon the general incidence of  
the disease in Saskatchewan. So producers are shouldering a general burden that often arises  
through no fault of their own. Hence, some form of compensation is justifiable.  
 
Page: 5  
[5]  
But there are many calls upon the public purse, so that Parliament has decided that  
compensation under the Act must be limited in the ways set out above.  
[6]  
The evidence before me is that, generally speaking, both producers and CFIA understand  
the inherent limitations of the system and usually work towards an acceptable, though inevitably  
inadequate, compromise. In the present case, the economic impact of CWD upon the Appellant  
has been so huge that, given the limited nature of the compensation available, the Appellant  
naturally wishes to ensure that it receives the maximum to which it is entitled. On the other side,  
those fixed with assessing the compensation no matter how sympathetic they may be with the  
plight of the producer must adhere to the legislative scheme and remain faithful to the public  
trust that is reposed in them. The elk market is fairly new in Saskatchewan, has undergone a  
significant recent evolution, and has singular features that make it far from easy to determine a  
market value for animals that are destroyed. Both sides in this dispute have very different views  
on what is required to identify what is reasonable and fair in the particular circumstances of this  
case. Inevitably, then, tensions have arisen, and these have led to some ad hominem criticism of  
the chair of the compensation committee, Dr. Greg Graham. He is accused of lacking the  
qualifications for the task at hand and of being myopic when it comes to the factors that  
determine the value of elk in todays evolving market. In my view, the evidence shows that  
personal attacks upon Dr. Graham are unwarranted. The tensions that have arisen in this case are  
a function of the significant financial losses suffered by the Appellant as a result of the  
depopulation of its elk herd, the limited assistance available to it under the statutory scheme, the  
particular valuation difficulties that arose in this case, and the unique features of an evolving elk  
Page: 6  
market that make it very difficult to determine a fair market value for elk that have been  
destroyed under the Act.  
III.  
ROLE OF THE COURT  
[7]  
The Courts role as an Assessor in handling compensation appeals under the Act is not, in  
my view, an entirely happy one. The only recourse for producers who are not satisfied with  
compensation decisions under the Act is to appeal to the Federal Court as an Assessor in  
accordance with the Act. The Courts decision is final.  
[8]  
The Court is well versed in the principles that govern judicial review of the decisions of  
boards and tribunals. But an appeal of compensation under the Act is not an exercise in judicial  
review. It is, in effect, a de novo trial of the issue of whether the compensation awarded by the  
Minister under the Act was reasonable. See Ferme Siclo v Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food),  
2004 FC 871 at para 55 [Siclo]. The Court has no expertise in the elk market and yet, in this case,  
is being called upon to identify, and possibly apply, the principles that should determine a  
reasonable market value for destroyed elk in a context where the market itself is fairly new and  
still evolving, and where a consensus on principle, at least on the evidence before me, has yet to  
emerge. The Court would normally be assisted in this task by expert testimony, but in the context  
of an appeal process that has no pre-trial discovery and is intended to give producers a fairly  
informal and timely way of questioning compensation decisions, experts are unlikely to be  
called, and none were called in this case.  
 
Page: 7  
[9]  
This kind of decision, in my view, should be made by those knowledgeable in the  
industry whose decisions could be made subject to judicial review if necessary. Experts were  
used by both CFIA and the Appellant as part of the compensation process but, as I will discuss  
later, they used different valuation principles, so no consensus is detectable. Both sides agree,  
however, that the evaluation process was difficult in this case.  
[10] Notwithstanding these problems, I highly commend both sides for the respectful and  
conscientious manner in which they conducted the hearing before me in Battleford. All involved,  
including the Court, are doing their best to render workable what is, in my view, a flawed and  
fraught compensation and appeal process.  
IV.  
BACKGROUND  
[11] I detect no disagreement between the parties as to the general background to this dispute.  
It is accurately summarized by the Respondent in written submissions which I set out below.  
A.  
Overview  
[12] The Appellant owns and operates a game ranch near Turtleford, Saskatchewan. The  
Appellants operation includes meat and velvet production, hunting and breeding of elk (a  
member of the family Cervidae). Cervids are bred to produce males for the purpose of meat and  
velvet production as well as for hunts to hunters who will pay a fee in exchange for a hunting  
experience in natural surroundings.  
   
Page: 8  
[13] On February 3, 2014, a preliminary positive result of CWD was confirmed by the  
National Laboratory in Ottawa, Ontario of one of the Appellants elk a 7-year-old male. The  
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada issued a Destruction Order to depopulate all of  
the Appellants bull elk. The Minister paid compensation to the Appellant for the destruction of  
these elk, and the Appellant has appealed the assessment.  
B.  
The Facts  
[14] On February 3, 2014 it was confirmed that one of the Appellants elk, a 7-year-old male,  
tested positive for CWD, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that causes a progressive  
neurological disease in elk and other Cervidae. CWD is generally believed to be caused by  
abnormal proteins called prions that will affect the animals central nervous system. It is highly  
contagious and inevitably fatal.  
[15] CWD is a reportable disease under s 5 of the Act and s 2 of the Reportable Diseases  
Regulations, SOR/91-2.  
[16] On February 3, 2014 and February 5, 2014, Notices of Quarantine (for separate pastures)  
were issued by CFIA to the Appellant pursuant to s 6 of the Health of Animals Regulations,  
CRC, c 296 that placed all cervids connected to the Appellants premises under quarantine.  
[17] On February 5, 2014 and March 20, 2014, CFIA issued Notices of Requirement to  
Dispose to the Appellant, pursuant to s 48(1) of the Act, stating that destruction would occur by  
 
Page: 9  
May 31, 2014. By March 27, 2014, the 266 bull elk identified by CFIA for depopulation were  
euthanized, culled, or had died of CWD.  
[18] On February 3, 2014 and March 14, 2014, Declarations of Infected Place were issued by  
CFIA pursuant to s 22 of the Act for the identified premises of the Appellant based on the  
suspicion of CWD.  
[19] The Minister engaged the Appellant for the purposes of valuing its animals in respect of  
compensation to be ordered under the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations,  
SOR/2000-233 [Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations].  
[20] An evaluation team approach was used which included: Dr. Graham, the Chairperson on  
behalf of CFIA; Mr. Randy Wehrkamp, an industry evaluator proposed by the Appellant; and Dr.  
Clarence Bischop, an evaluator proposed by CFIA.  
[21] On March 5, 2014, a Compensation Meeting was held at Mervin, Saskatchewan with the  
Appellant (represented by its business partners, Mr. Bentley Brown and Mr. Keith Conacher),  
Dr. Graham, Dr. Bischop and Mr. Wehrkamp in attendance. Dr. Graham was the CFIA  
Chairperson for the evaluation with the appropriate delegated authority. General matters of  
valuation were discussed and it was determined that Dr. Bischop and Mr. Wehrkamp would each  
formulate their own report on the valuation of the Appellant’s depopulated elk.  
Page: 10  
[22] At the Compensation Meeting, the parameters of compensation were reviewed and there  
was a discussion related to the determination of market value” and the importance of bills of  
sales, receipts and relevant pedigree and production records such that a determination on the  
profile of the herd and their appropriate values could be made. Mr. Wehrkamp provided a  
preliminary hand-written presentation at the Compensation Meeting to the Chair, Dr. Graham  
and Dr. Bischop for their review.  
[23] Antlers are the basis for the industry scoring system by which the value of male elk can  
be assessed (the Safari Club International scoring system known as “SCI”). The bull elk in this  
case had not yet fully grown their antlers for the 2014 season; antlers will generally grow in fully  
by autumn. Without the antlers to score and with little supporting documentation respecting the  
value of the animals, valuation can be difficult, and was in this case.  
[24] By March 27, 2014, the Minister depopulated the Appellants bull elk. During the  
depopulation of the Appellants elk, accurate inventories were established, confirming the ages  
and the numbers of animals that had been identified for depopulation.  
[25] Mr. Wehrkamp completed his final report and submitted it to Dr. Graham for  
consideration on or about March 10, 2014. The Appellant provided one receipt relevant to one of  
the bull elk depopulated (SNOR 901W) and declined to provide receipts, invoices or other  
information in relation to the Appellants depopulated animals as requested by Dr. Graham. The  
explanation given for this was that purchase receipts were irrelevant because most of the animals  
to be valued had been acquired under a “block-purchase” arrangement and receipts did not  
Page: 11  
indicate the acquisition cost of the animals to be valued for compensation purposes. Dr. Bischop  
completed and submitted his report on or about March 26, 2014 to Dr. Graham for consideration.  
On May 2, 2014, Dr. Graham completed his Report of Valuation for the Appellants elk.  
[26] On May 2, 2014, in accordance with the Valuation Report completed by Dr. Graham, and  
in accordance with the true inventory numbers, the Minister issued Notices of Award of  
Compensation to the Appellant for their bull elk. The Minister also issued Notices of Award of  
Compensation to the owners of two bull elk that were in close proximity to the Appellants  
animals and therefore included in the depopulation.  
[27] The Appellant was awarded compensation of $476,343.00 for the depopulation of its bull  
elk herd. Testing of the animals following depopulation resulted in a total of 5 positive results for  
CWD.  
[28] The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on or about July 7, 2014 pursuant to s 56 of the  
Act stating that they wished to appeal the compensation of their bull elk.  
V.  
DECISION UNDER APPEAL  
[29] The award of compensation for the Appellants destroyed bulk elk made by the Minister  
was based upon Dr. Grahams Valuation Report of May 2, 2014.  
[30] The explanatory section of Dr. Grahams Valuation Report reads as follows:  
 
Page: 12  
Attended the premise of Bentley Brown of Mervin, Saskatchewan  
on March 5/14 to meet with Bentley and his business partner Keith  
Connacher (Willow Hollow Game Farms) to chair a CWD  
compensation meeting with their Industry representative Randy  
Wehrkamp of Tisdale, Saskatchewan and Dr. Clarence Bischop  
representing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  
The parameters of compensation were reviewed and discussed.  
Bills of sale and receipts were deemed very important (hunt,  
slaughter, velvet and breeding sales) to determine the herd profile  
components and their appropriate values.  
Willow Hollow Game Farms elk herd consists of a meat, velvet  
and a hunt component. The herd started in 2009 with the purchase  
of females and males from at least ten producers. WHGF has  
provided no purchase receipts during this entire compensation  
process but did indicate they were purchased at meat prices. Above  
average/superior genetics would have reflected higher prices upon  
purchase. The hunt component of the operation averaged 31 hunts  
per year the past five years. There is no proof that the trophy  
quality (antler score) of the existing herd is similar to the animals  
hunted off over the last three years. Many of these animals were  
purchased hunt ready, already bearing hunt-worthy antlers and  
the remaining animals in the herd are not linked to these values.  
The owners have not provided purchase receipts to substantiate  
that the existing herd is as valuable as the trophy animals already  
hunted off. The remaining animals not hunted out each year are  
harvested for velvet. Mr. Wehrkamp insists that the herd is  
basically for hunt, but the farm sold at least $120,000 of velvet in  
2013 as attested Dr. Jim McLane of the Battleford District Office.  
(4000 lbs @$30 per lb - 2013 price)  
Together with the information provided by Mr.Wehrkamp for the  
prospective sale of 2014 hunt bulls from various suppliers (price  
lists) averaging $4500 and an invoice provided by Bentley for the  
recent purchase of 17 replacement trophy bulls for $72,500 for  
2014 hunt season I will assign a value of $4500 to a trophy bull.  
Since velvet should average at least $700 per bull for 2014 (20lb at  
$35 per lb.) and meat value average of $1675 per bull, (AWAPCO  
average slaughter value for the March 13 and 27/14 slaughter  
dates) a value of $2375 will be assigned to a velvet/meat bull.  
With the assignment 15% of the approximately 200 animals in the  
mature herd being of trophy quality (approximately 31/200) I will  
assign a weighted composite (hunt, velvet, meat) value of $2700 to  
each animal aged 2010 and older. (85% of $2375 = $2019) plus  
(15% of $4500 = $675) equals $2700.)  
Page: 13  
Similarly 2011 animals to be assigned $1800 ($1275 meat and  
$525 velvet; AWAPCO return average plus 15 lb velvet at $35 lb)  
and $1400 ($1050 meat and $350 velvet; AWAPCO average  
slaughter value plus 10 lb velvet at $35 lb) to 2012 animals based  
on meat/velvet values.  
SNOR 901W will be assigned $8000 since a receipt of $9250 was  
provided.  
Points to review.  
1. Velvet sales play a significant part of total herd income. at  
least $120,000 for 2013.  
2. Dr. Bischops assigned value of $4800 to the hunt herd is  
premised on the fact that the entire herd is made up of trophy bulls.  
I have asked WHGF and Mr. Wehrkamp at least three separate  
times for receipts and/or documentation to validate that is the case.  
Nothing was provided. My assignment of $4500 is based on Mr.  
Brown’s recent purchase of 17 “like” (similar to the year before)  
trophy bulls and the price lists for suppliers for the 2014 hunt year.  
3. For the last five years WHGF has averaged 31hunts/year with a  
large number of trophy bulls being purchased just prior to the  
hunts as being "hunt ready". Animals hunted out each year do not  
give an accurate profile of what remains in the herd.  
4. 15% of the mature herd has been assigned trophy status...  
approximately 31 hunts per year for the past five years of  
approximately 200 in the mature herd.  
[signature]  
Greg Graham DVM May 2/14  
VI.  
A.  
LEGAL FRAMEWORK  
The Legislation  
[31] I set out the applicable legal framework for an appeal of this nature in my decision in  
Alsager v Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2011 FC 1071 [Alsager] which the Respondent  
has ably summarized in written submissions as set out below.  
   
Page: 14  
[32] The issue in this matter is limited to the question of whether compensation issued to the  
Appellant is reasonable. The Act states:  
Appeal  
Appel  
56. (1) A person who claims  
compensation and is  
56 (1) Il peut être interjeté  
appel devant lévaluateur soit  
dissatisfied with the Ministers pour refus injustifié  
disposition of the claim may  
dindemnisation, soit pour  
bring an appeal to the  
insuffisance de lindemnité  
Assessor, but the only grounds accordée.  
of appeal are that the failure to  
award compensation was  
unreasonable or that the  
amount awarded was  
unreasonable.  
[33] In Siclo, above, Blanchard J. noted that in terms of the adequacy of compensation  
pursuant to the Act, “we must rely on the test of what is reasonable.”  
[34] In Alsager, above, the Appellant sought to appeal the compensation awarded by the  
Minister for the depopulation of his elk due to CWD under the Act. As Deputy Assessor, I  
confirmed that the grounds for appeal “are limited to whether the failure to award compensation  
was unreasonable, or whether the amount awarded was unreasonable.”  
[35] In response to issues raised by the Appellant in Alsager related to the compensation  
process established under the Act, I stated that the Appellants general views were both complex  
and controversial political issues that belonged in the political forum:  
... In any event, they belong in the political forum and I am sure  
that Mr. Alsager, who was both forceful and forthright in  
representing himself before me, is fully aware that these general  
Page: 15  
views need to be pursued and tested in the political arena. All that  
the Court can do is to determine whether, given the present scheme  
that Parliament has devised, and the methodologies and criteria  
used to evaluate his animals in this case, the compensation he  
received was reasonable.  
[36] In Ferme Avicole Heva Inc v Canada (Agriculture), [1998] FCJ No 1021 (TD) [Ferme  
Avicole Heva Inc], Tremblay-Lamer J. stated that lost profit or value to the owner was not the  
same as market value when determining compensation:  
[38] It has been established in the case law that the value to the  
owner does not correspond to fair market value, and that the  
compensation was not intended to compensate the owner for its  
lost profits by putting it back into the same position as it was in  
before the animals were destroyed.  
[37] In Siclo, above, Blanchard J. outlines the applicable legislation, beginning at paragraph  
22, respecting the Ministers authority to order the destruction of animals and the discretion to  
order compensation corresponding to the fair market value of the animal at the time of its  
destruction:  
[22] Section 48 of the Animal Health Act authorizes the Minister  
to order the destruction of animals which are, or are suspected of  
being, affected or contaminated by a disease. Under section 51,  
when the owners animals are destroyed the Minister may order  
compensation to be paid to the owner. At the same time, under  
subsection 51(2), the compensation payable to the owner must  
correspond to the market value of the animal minus the value of its  
carcass, as determined by the Minister, at the time of the appraisal  
if its destruction was not ordered.  
[38] Subsection 48(1) of the Act states:  
48.(1) The Minister may  
dispose of an animal or thing,  
48 (1) Le ministre peut prendre  
toute mesure de disposition,  
Page: 16  
or require its owner or any  
person having the possession,  
care or control of it to dispose  
notamment de destruction, —  
ou ordonner à leur propriétaire,  
ou à la personne qui en a la  
of it, where the animal or thing possession, la responsabilité ou  
la charge des soins, de le faire  
à légard des animaux ou  
choses qui :  
(a) is, or is suspected of being,  
affected or contaminated by a  
disease or toxic substance;  
a) soit sont contaminés par une  
maladie ou une substance  
toxique, ou soupçonnés de  
lêtre;  
(b) has been in contact with or b) soit ont été en contact avec  
in close proximity to another  
animal or thing that was, or is  
suspected of having been,  
affected or contaminated by a  
disease or toxic substance at  
the time of contact or close  
proximity; or  
des animaux ou choses de la  
catégorie visée à lalinéa a) ou  
se sont trouvés dans leur  
voisinage immédiat;  
(c) is, or is suspected of being,  
c) soit sont des substances  
a vector, the causative agent of toxiques, des vecteurs ou des  
a disease or a toxic substance.  
agents causant des maladies,  
ou sont soupçonnés den être.  
[39] Section 51 of the Act addresses compensation to owners of animals:  
51. (1) The Minister may order 51 (1) Le ministre peut  
compensation to be paid from  
ordonner le versement, sur le  
the Consolidated Revenue  
Trésor, dune indemnité au  
Fund to the owner of an animal propriétaire de lanimal :  
that is  
(a) destroyed under this Act or a) soit détruit au titre de la  
is required by an inspector or  
officer to be destroyed under  
this Act and dies after the  
requirement is imposed but  
before being destroyed;  
présente loi, soit dont la  
destruction a été ordonnée par  
linspecteur ou lagent  
dexécution mais mort avant  
celle-ci;  
(b) injured in the course of  
being tested, treated or  
b) blessé au cours dun examen  
ou dune séance de traitement  
identified under this Act by an ou didentification effectués,  
Page: 17  
inspector or officer and dies, or au même titre, par un  
is required to be destroyed, as  
inspecteur ou un agent  
a result of the injury; or  
dexécution et mort ou détruit  
en raison de cette blessure;  
(c) reserved for  
experimentation under  
paragraph 13(2)(a).  
c) affecté à des expériences au  
titre du paragraphe 13(2).  
(2) Subject to subsections (3)  
and (4), the amount of  
(2) Sous réserve des  
paragraphes (3) et (4),  
compensation shall be  
lindemnité payable est égale à  
la valeur marchande, selon  
lévaluation du ministre, que  
lanimal aurait eue au moment  
de lévaluation si sa  
destruction navait pas été  
ordonnée, déduction faite de la  
valeur de son cadavre.  
(a) the market value, as  
determined by the Minister,  
that the animal would have had  
at the time of its evaluation by  
the Minister if it had not been  
required to be destroyed  
Minus  
(b) the value of its carcass, as  
determined by the Minister.  
(3) The value mentioned in  
paragraph (2)(a) shall not  
exceed any maximum amount  
established with respect to the  
animal by or under the  
regulations.  
(3) La valeur marchande ne  
peut dépasser le maximum  
réglementaire correspondant à  
lanimal en cause.  
(4) In addition to the amount  
calculated under subsection  
(4) Lindemnisation sétend en  
outre, lorsque les règlements le  
(2), compensation may include prévoient, aux frais de  
such costs related to the  
disposition, y compris de  
disposal of the animal as are  
permitted by the regulations.  
destruction.  
[40] The Ministers discretion to compensate is limited by maximum amounts established  
under the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations:  
2. For the purpose of  
2 Pour lapplication du  
subsection 51(3) of the Act,  
paragraphe 51(3) de la Loi, la  
the amount that is established  
valeur marchande dun animal  
Page: 18  
as the maximum amount with  
respect to an animal that is  
destroyed or required to be  
qui est détruit ou qui doit lêtre  
en application du paragraphe  
48(1) de la Loi ne peut  
destroyed under subsection 48( dépasser :  
I ) of the Act is  
(a) if the animal is set out or  
included in column 1 of an  
item of the schedule, the  
amount set out in column 3 of  
that item; and  
a) le montant prévu à la  
colonne 3 de lannexe, pour  
tout animal visé à la colonne 1;  
(b) in any other case, $30.  
b) 30 $, dans tout autre cas.  
[41] In the particular case of elk, the schedule, pursuant to the above noted s 2(a) of the  
Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations, provides that the maximum amount the  
Minister may award is as follows:  
39. Elk (Cervus elaphus) Bull, 1 year and older Cervidae 8,000  
40. Elk (Cervus elaphus) All elk other than those Cervidae 4,000  
referred to in item 39  
[42] In Donaldson v Canada (Minister of Agriculture), 2006 FC 842 [Donaldson], Kelen J.  
stated that the proper approach when determining the reasonable amount to award for the  
compensation of an animal destroyed under the Act is the market value that the animal had at the  
time of destruction, subject to any maximum amount referred to in s 51(3) of the Act.  
[43] The Act also provides direction on the powers of the Assessor, potential costs and finality  
of the Assessors decision where an appeal has been brought by the person who claims  
compensation:  
57. (1) On hearing an appeal,  
the Assessor may confirm or  
vary the Ministers disposition  
57 (1) Lévaluateur qui entend  
lappel peut confirmer ou  
modifier la décision du  
Page: 19  
of the claim or refer the matter ministre ou renvoyer laffaire à  
back to the Minister for such  
further action as the assessor  
may direct.  
celui-ci pour quil y soit donné  
suite de la manière que lui-  
même précise.  
(2) Costs may be awarded to or (2) Les frais peuvent être  
against the Minister in an  
appeal.  
accordés au ministre ou mis à  
sa charge.  
(3) The decision of the  
(3) Les décisions de  
Assessor on an appeal is final  
lévaluateur ne sont pas  
and conclusive and not subject susceptibles dappel ou de  
to appeal to or review by any  
Court.  
révision.  
[44] I confirmed the framework and principles as set out above in my capacity as Deputy  
Assessor in Alsager, above.  
B.  
The Common Procedures Manual  
[45] Both sides acknowledge the relevance of the Common Procedures Manual as a guide to  
the compensation process.  
[46] Subsection 12.1.2 of the Common Procedures Manual makes it clear that eligibility for  
the payment of compensation includes “animals ordered destroyed pursuant to section 48 of the  
Health of Animals Act, including animals that die before they are destroyed.”  
[47] Subsection 12.1 of the Common Procedures Manual requires CFIA, inter alia, to provide  
the owner of the animals with an explanation of “the basis of awarding the compensation.”  
 
Page: 20  
[48] The evaluation team approach to compensation that was used in the present case is  
governed by ss 12.3.2 and 12.3.3 of the Common Procedures Manual:  
12.3.2 Establishing an Evaluation Team  
3. Use an evaluation team in the following circumstances:  
the above conditions for a sole evaluator are not met; or  
the market value of the animal and/or thing cannot be  
readily established.  
4. An evaluation team must include the following:  
a CFIA veterinary inspector to chair the team;  
an industry expert evaluator selected by the CFIA; and  
an industry expert evaluator selected by the owner and  
acceptable to the CFIA.  
5. Confirm that the industry experts named to the evaluation team  
are knowledgeable of the market values of the following:  
the species type, class, and breed of animals being  
evaluated; and  
any things being evaluated, such as milk, eggs, semen,  
embryos, hay, fodder, feed stuffs, fertilizer, packing  
materials, and containers.  
6. Confirm that each individual engaged as an industry expert  
evaluator is free of any conflict of interest in relation to the owner  
of the animals or things being evaluated, or in relation to the  
animals or things being evaluated.  
12.3.3 Evaluation  
7. On behalf of the CFIA, enter into a contractual agreement for  
evaluation services with each industry expert evaluator. Use  
standard contract documents, and add the following statements:  
Contractors are aware and understand that, under the  
Health of Animals Act, the Minister may pay  
compensation to the owner of an animal or thing that is  
destroyed under that Act and that the amount of  
compensation shall be the market value (up to the  
Page: 21  
maximum amount allowed), according to the  
Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations  
schedule (section 3) and (as determined by the Minister)  
that the animal would have had at the time of its  
evaluation less any carcass salvage value had it not  
been ordered destroyed.  
Contractors act as follows:  
They provide, in writing to the CFIA, an opinion of the  
market value of each animal or thing evaluated,  
together with the reasons for holding that opinion of the  
market value.  
They acknowledge that they were provided with the  
Minister’s definition an understanding of market value  
and how it is to be assessed, as set out in this section of  
the manual.  
They declare freedom from conflict of interest in  
relation to the owner of the animal or thing being  
evaluated, or in relation to the animal or thing being  
evaluated.  
[49] The central concept of “market value” and how it must be established is set out in s 12.4  
of the Common Procedures Manual:  
12.4 Market Value  
This section ensures a common understanding of market value  
among owners, industry experts, and the Canadian Food Inspection  
Agency (CFIA).  
For the purpose of awarding compensation, market value is the  
value that the animal or thing would have had at the time of its  
evaluation if it had been sold in the open market (i.e. to a willing  
buyer from a willing seller) and not been ordered destroyed.  
12.4.1 General Procedures  
1. Consult the network veterinary program specialist to determine  
the amounts of compensation that have been awarded recently  
for similar animals. This discussion should always occur before  
the owner is given the compensation form. (Form CFIA/ACIA  
4203 - Requirement to Dispose and Award of Compensation  
Page: 22  
and Form CFIA/ACIA 4210 - Requirement to Dispose and  
Award of Compensation [for Things] should be used in  
conjunction with Form CFIA/ACIA 4202 -Requirement to  
Dispose of Animals or Things.)  
2. The maximum values found in the Compensation for Destroyed  
Animals Regulations are reviewed on a periodic basis and  
adjusted to reflect current market values.  
3. Confirm the understanding of market value with the owner by  
asking the owner to provide the following:  
bills of sale and receipts for relevant transactions during  
the past two years, for reference purposes; and  
relevant pedigrees and production records.  
4. Confirm the industry expert’s understanding of market value by  
clarifying that market value should be as follows:  
comparable to the price paid by a willing buyer to a  
willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction for  
comparable animal or thing;  
based on current prices charged by local suppliers; or  
based on current prices paid by marketing agents or  
agencies for milk, eggs, etc.  
[50] The Common Procedures Manual provides specific guidance on the valuation of animals  
and things in s 12.6:  
12.6 Evaluating Animals and Things  
This module provides guidance on the evaluation of animals and  
things.  
1. The evaluation team must conduct a market value assessment,  
which includes a review of current price information derived  
from animal industry sales of similar breeds and types of the  
relevant species, such as the following:  
local auction markets;  
stockyards;  
Page: 23  
herd dispersal and production sales;  
sales held in conjunction with shows and exhibitions; and  
documented private treaty transactions.  
2. Complete an evaluation report documenting the evaluation of  
each animal eligible for compensation, using the worksheets in  
modules 12.16 and 12.17, and Module 12.5: Economic Model -  
Evaluating Poultry With No Readily Available Market. The  
worksheets may be modified if necessary.  
3. The industry expert evaluators, selected jointly by the owner  
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), describe and  
evaluate each animal or group of animals eligible for  
compensation. Their determinations are recorded on the  
evaluation worksheet by the veterinary inspector who chairs the  
team.  
4. Industry expert evaluators must base their opinions of the  
market value of each animal eligible for compensation on the  
following:  
their assessment of the relevant characteristics of each  
animal, including the following:  
type (e.g. dairy, beef, layer, broiler),  
breed,  
class or purpose (e.g. breeding, meat, velvet, milk), o  
age (may require looking at dentition),  
gender,  
genetic merit (examining records of production or  
performance), or pedigree (grade vs. purebred),  
stage of production or pregnancy (e.g. open, pregnant,  
nursing, stocker, weaned),  
production level of milk, velvet, wool, litter size,  
multiple births,  
conformation (e.g. physical defects, body weight and  
size for type or breed purpose),  
physical condition,  
Page: 24  
special health status, such as specific pathogen free,  
and  
other features of the animal not included in the above  
factors and which reflect, in most cases, the availability  
of a comparable animal in the open market;  
their knowledge of prices paid for comparable animals in  
the open market place, obtained during the evaluation  
team’s market value in accordance with Module 12.4:  
Market Value; and  
making no allowance for past market prices or anticipated  
future values.  
5. The owner and the evaluation team may agree to group animals  
of the same type, class or purpose, age, gender, stage of  
production, physical condition, and weight to establish the  
market value of each animal in the group. For example, each  
animal in a group of finished beef breed steers weighing 440-  
460 kg and in good physical condition may be assigned the  
same market value. Similarly, each bird in a flock of leghorn  
hens at 95 days laying may be assigned the same value.  
6. In the case of an animal for which registration papers are  
unavailable or have not been transferred into the name of the  
owner, the following should occur:  
the industry expert evaluators should determine both grade  
and purebred market values;  
the CFIA veterinary inspector should award compensation  
based on the grade market value; and  
supplementary compensation based on the difference  
between the grade market value and the purebred market  
value should be awarded when the registration papers are  
provided to the CFIA, if they are received within 90 days  
of the date the animal was evaluated.  
7. All members of the evaluation team sign an evaluation  
worksheet for each animal or group of animals evaluated, as  
well as the record of values for things, and any notes for the  
rationale or justification of the values assigned.  
8. In cases where the evaluation team is unable to reach agreement,  
the industry and CFIA evaluation experts should each present a  
written report, along with supporting documentation, to the  
Page: 25  
evaluation team chair. The chair (i.e. CFIA district veterinarian  
or staff) will determine the compensation to be awarded and  
outline the reasons in an evaluation chair report. All  
compensation may be appealed.  
[51] In the present case, s 8 of 12.6 came into play because the evaluation team was unable to  
reach agreement.  
[52] While both sides acknowledged the importance of the Common Procedures Manual, both  
Dr. Graham and Dr. Bischop acknowledged that it provides guidelines, but there was also some  
flexibility in the evaluation process.  
VII. THE ISSUE  
[53] The issue before the Court, as Assessor, is whether, in accordance with s 56(1) of the Act,  
the compensation awarded by the Minister in this case was unreasonable, and whether in  
accordance with s 57(1) of the Act, the Court, as Assessor, should confirm or vary the Ministers  
disposition or refer the matter back to the Minister for such further action as the Court, as  
Assessor, should direct.  
VIII. MR. WEHRKAMPS ROLE  
[54] Mr. Wehrkamp’s role in the appeal process is somewhat ambivalent. He was appointed as  
the industry expert evaluator under s 12.3 of the Common Procedures Manual at which time he  
must have been “acceptable to the CFIA” under s 12.3.2(4) and “free of any conflict of interest”  
under s 12.3.2(6). Mr. Wehrkamp has not put himself forward as an “expert witness” in the  
   
Page: 26  
appeal, but he is both a witness and the advocate for the Appellant. Indeed, the evidence shows  
that he immediately took up the Appellant’s cause after Dr. Graham made his recommendations.  
The Respondent has not objected to Mr. Wehrkamp playing this dual role it may make some  
sense in the context of an appeal under s 56(1) of the Act – but in assessing Mr. Wehrkamp’s  
evidence and his arguments, the Court has to remain aware that he is acting as both witness and  
advocate for the Appellant. Dr. Graham and Dr. Bischop were also involved in the compensation  
evaluation (Dr. Graham as the Chairperson and Dr. Bischop as the CFIA expert), but Dr. Graham  
and Dr. Bischop have only given evidence as witnesses in the appeal process. They are not acting  
as advocates for CFIA although, inevitably, in giving evidence they were being asked to justify  
their previous decisions.  
[55] Neither of the Appellant’s two owners, Mr. Bentley Brown and Mr. Keith Conacher,  
were called as witnesses. This means that they could not be cross-examined under oath on their  
refusal to produce the receipts and invoices that Dr. Graham repeatedly asked for.  
Mr. Wehrkamp has provided an explanation (the receipts were not available or relevant), but  
irrelevancy does not prevent them from being produced. Dr. Graham and/or the Court could have  
decided the issue of relevance themselves, and Mr. Wehrkamp’s position on this issue could  
have been tested.  
[56] I have no reason to think that Mr. Wehrkamp testified in any way that was less than  
truthful, but his joint role as witness and advocate sometimes mingled in a way that requires the  
Court to be particularly careful when examining the Appellant’s evidence to ensure that it  
Page: 27  
provides an objective evidentiary basis for the severe criticism levelled against CFIA, and  
Dr. Graham in particular.  
IX.  
A.  
ARGUMENTS  
Appellant  
[57] Essentially, the Appellant argues that CFIA failed to recognize and value its primary hunt  
business. WHGR says that the evidence before Dr. Graham was that the order of revenue from  
its elk business was hunt, velvet and meat sales, so that the Appellant is primarily a hunt  
business, even though it also has velvet and meat revenues.  
[58] CFIA failed to take into account that the Appellant was rebuilding its elk herd following  
the 2009 depopulation (when 550 elk were destroyed) and that only half that number of elk were  
destroyed in 2014 because the rebuilding process was still under way. This meant that the  
Appellant was retaining genetically superior and therefore more valuable bulls as part of the  
rebuilding process. This is why the Appellant was selling hunt-ready animals acquired from  
other producers. The Appellant was not marketing its own hunt-ready animals because they were  
required for breeding purposes and so were not actively marketed. Only those bulls that were six  
years or older were hunt-ready and available for sale as hunt animals or to other hunt properties.  
Even though the bulls at the WHGR were of hunt or breeding quality, the Appellant was not in a  
position to sell hunt-ready or breeding bulls because the whole herd was at 50 percent capacity  
and was still being rebuilt after the 2009 depopulation.  
   
Page: 28  
[59] In rebuilding the herd following the 2009 depopulation, the Appellant acquired groups of  
bulls from different producers [block-purchase]. Block-purchases involve a single, agreed-to-  
price, for a group of animals of mixed ages and mixed genetic value. These animals were then  
subjected to a fairly aggressive culling process each year so that only the better and therefore  
more valuable animals were retained and used for velvet sales and the rebuilding of the herd.  
Fifty-five bulls had been culled in 2013 as part of this culling process and had been sold for  
meat.  
[60] In its evaluation, CFIA failed to understand and/or take into account the enhancements in  
value that the rebuilding process had produced in those animals that were destroyed in 2014.  
Through culling, animals that fell below the ranch standard were sold for meat each year and the  
bulls retained were those expected to become hunt bulls at six years of age.  
[61] CFIA insisted upon purchase receipts for the animals left in the herd as an indicator of  
genetic and market value. But purchase receipts would not and could not provide a  
reasonable indication of the animals retained in the herd after culling. This is because block-  
purchasing involves the acquisition of animals of a different quality and value for a fixed, global  
price, and those animals that do not meet the standard required to build the value of the herd over  
time are culled each year.  
[62] The Appellant points to the solid evidence produced to show that values in the elk  
industry for meat, velvet and hunt animals have appreciated considerably over the past five  
Page: 29  
years. This shows that purchase prices from prior years could not reflect the 2014 value of an elk  
herd that has been significantly culled to improve the value of remaining animals.  
[63] CFIA based its valuation upon a lack of receipts and failed to use other established  
practices to value the remaining 2014 herd. No visual inspection of animals was carried out prior  
to destruction. Dr. Graham was also provided with the age and farm-source of all bulls  
purchased, as well as the velvet weights of bulls by age and with a five-year average of the  
number and size of bulls hunted each year. CFIA also had in its possession the movement  
permits for all bulls transported and so knew how many hunt-ready bulls were moved to WHGR.  
Dr. Graham also knew that 55 bulls (i.e. 20% of the bulls purchased) had been culled. Yet these  
indicators were not taken into account in the valuation, and Dr. Graham based his valuation upon  
meat values.  
[64] CFIAs own expert evaluator, Dr. Bischop, accepted that age is a major consideration in  
the evaluation process and produced an evaluation that came within 2 percent of the Appellants  
own evaluation. Yet Dr. Graham rejected Dr. Bischops evaluation and did not allow sufficient  
age bands to fairly assess and differentiate values to take age into account.  
[65] Dr. Graham lacked the experience and industry knowledge to produce a fair and  
reasonable evaluation. For example, he was not aware that six years is an industry standard for  
the definition of a mature bull; he is not familiar with the basic anatomy of elk and how antlers  
grow and develop; and, he did not visually inspect the bulls that were destroyed. Dr. Bischop, on  
the other hand, did have extensive experience working with cervids (particularly elk) and he had  
Page: 30  
participated in up to fifteen assessments/depopulations. Yet his valuation was rejected by  
Dr. Graham. In fact, Dr. Graham devalued the evaluations of both experts by 49% without  
providing any reasonable rationale or evidentiary basis for doing so.  
[66] The Appellant has only been able to re-stock its bull herd to 42 percent of the 2014  
capacity. Bulls are available, but the compensation provided in this case was not sufficient to  
meet the market values for replacement bulls.  
[67] As regards the velvet aspects of the evaluation, the actual price of an elk velvet antler in  
2014 was $40 per lb. Yet Dr. Graham used $34 per lb in his determination of current value,  
which resulted in an undervaluation for velvet in the amount of $24,000.  
B.  
Respondent  
[68] The Respondent argues that the Appellant was awarded a total of $476,343.00. This  
amount was arrived at based on a number of considerations that included but were not limited to:  
replacement values, claims of genetic quality, age, restricted movement status and use of the  
animal.  
[69] The valuation of the elk included the consideration of the industrys scoring system of the  
antlers SCI. The antlers had not yet grown in for the season at the time of the depopulation, so  
the SCI scoring system was of use in only a general way.  
 
Page: 31  
[70] The valuation of the Appellants bull elk was further based on the consideration of  
relevant information provided by: the Appellant, the reports submitted to Dr. Graham, the Chair,  
and each of the expert evaluators. Further information was obtained through the independent  
efforts of the Chair.  
[71] The valuation of the elk was further made difficult by the dearth of documentation  
provided by the Appellant that would have assisted in the determination process.  
[72] The compensation awarded to the Appellant was not unreasonable. Pursuant to s 51 of  
the Act, the Appellant received a total of $476,343.00 in compensation for the March 2014  
depopulation of their bull elk. The valuation of the Appellants bull elk was based on the  
replacement value, claims of genetic quality, age, restricted movement status and use of the  
animal. The Chair also took into consideration the relevant information provided by the  
Appellant, the reports submitted by each of the evaluators, the general application of the SCI  
scoring system and information obtained through the independent efforts of the Chair.  
[73] The Appellant has not shown that the compensation awarded was unreasonable. The  
valuation of the elk and the compensation awarded was based on the information that was  
available and reflected the fair market value of the animals at the time of depopulation.  
Page: 32  
X.  
A.  
EVIDENCE  
Appellants Witnesses  
Mr. Randy Wehrkamp Highlights  
(a)  
General  
[74] The principal witness for the Appellant was Mr. Randy Wehrkamp. Mr. Wehrkamp is the  
industry expert who participated in the evaluation process on behalf of the Appellant. He is also  
an elk farmer in his own right with his own farm at Tisdale. He has represented and been part of  
eight different elk compensation assessments, four of them prior to this one in 2014.  
(b)  
The Elk Industry in Saskatchewan  
[75] Mr. Wehrkamp describes the elk industry in Saskatchewan as a relatively “new industry”  
that has been around for “20, 25 years in Saskatchewan and Canada.” It is different from other  
livestock sectors in several significant ways and CFIA, which has “expertisein traditional  
market” does not understand the elk or cervid industry. This hampers their ability to determine  
fair market value for destroyed elk.  
[76] He says that the “cervid industry acts on a private treaty sales basis only” and this creates  
a challenge for non-industry people because producers are secretive and dont like to produce  
documentation about their businesses.  
         
Page: 33  
[77] WHGR underwent a depopulation of their whole elk herd in 2009. This was a low point  
for the industry because it immediately followed the general depressed conditions of 2008.  
Consumers were worried and “hunters from across the world werent traveling to Canada  
because the 2008 financial situation dictated that they stay at home. Their [i.e. the Appellants]  
markets were their businesses were suffering.”  
[78] The elk industry has “three markets primarily,which are meat, velvet and hunt. Ninety  
percent of the greater majority of producers who got into the elk industry got into the … started  
raising elk to grow bulls for the purpose of removing the antlers and selling what we refer to as  
velvet….Velvet simply refers to the outer covering on the antler.”  
[79] Meat production “in the case of the majority of farms in Saskatchewan, [is] simply the  
method that is used to cull animals from a herd.”  
[80] As regards documentation, “most of the information that is required by CFIA is very  
difficult to extract from hard records. They’re just…they’re not there. The industry is too  
young.”  
[81] Velvet prices have increased significantly in recent years. In 2009, velvet prices were “$7  
to $8 a pound, maybe $10 if you were lucky.” “Velvet in 2014 sold for $40 to $45 per pound and  
it has gone up another 20 percent from 2014.”  
Page: 34  
[82] Meat prices “have also gone up” in the same vein, increasing by 50 percent during the  
four year period prior to the WHGR depopulation in 2014: “In 2014 meat was selling as high as  
$3.90 a pound….”  
[83] 2014 was a good year for the elk industry: “We were in an upturn. We had four years of  
continued increased value for all of our products, including hunt bulls were going up in value.”  
[84] Hunt bulls are particularly valuable because they are used for breeding and are then sold  
as part of the hunt operation. Prices for young bulls “tend to be lower than prices for mature  
bulls.” This is because “Buying top end young bulls for breeding purposes allows you the  
opportunity to use that animal as a breading bull and then, value added, if you wish, into the hunt  
operation.” Also, in the elk industry “bulls at a younger age grow bigger antlers as they get older,  
and their value increases. That is one of the unique aspects of this industry that we struggle  
to…to educate folks to.”  
(c)  
The Nature of the Appellants Elk Business  
[85] One of the concerns that arises from the hearing of this matter is that no one who either  
owns WHGR or works directly with the business was called as a witness by the Appellant. This  
creates problems for the Court as an Assessor. Although this is not a formal Court proceeding,  
the problems associated with hearsay evidence still exist. Because it is second-hand and the  
source does not provide it under oath, it cannot be fully tested. On many matters before me,  
Mr. Wehrkamp was able to provide direct evidence because he was part of the evaluation  
process. But in other areas (the WHGR farm background, for instance), he could only tell me  
 
Page: 35  
what he has been told by those who own and work on WHGR, who are not under oath so their  
information cannot be tested. This issue should be kept in mind by any producer who appeals an  
evaluation. In the present case, it is not particularly problematic. According to Mr. Wehrkamp,  
however, no one in the elk industry likes to produce information. But without relevant  
information, no assessment is possible. If elk producers wish to make claims on the public purse  
for compensation then they have to realize that, unlike the private elk industry (according to  
Mr. Wehrkamp), complete transparency is a fundamental requirement. Producers cannot have it  
both ways. The Common Procedures Manual makes this very clear. Any producer who thinks  
they can make a claim on the public purse without providing CFIA what it needs to verify the  
amount of the claim is simply being naïve. The same applies when appeals are made.  
[86] Hearsay evidence is not automatically inadmissible, but I am uncomfortable with the fact  
that WHGR has not provided direct evidence on background aspects of its business that could  
have been tested by cross-examination. No explanation was offered for not calling direct  
evidence on some points. On the other hand, most of what Mr. Wehrkamp has to say about  
WHGRs business was not questioned by CFIA and no objections were raised on hearsay  
matters. I am assuming, then, that Mr. Wehrkamps evidence on this appeal is not controversial  
in any material respect.  
[87] Mr. Wehrkamp testified that WHGR “is one of the largest and most established farms in  
this industry.”  
[88] He also says that:  
Page: 36  
Early in their history and establishment of the farm, they made the  
decision to … to expand from a simple raising of animals to a hunt  
operation, providing hunting experiences for hunters from all over  
the world to travel, for the opportunity to hunt tremendous trophy  
animals on a hunt property that is not only stunningly beautiful but  
is large and is recognized internationally as one of the premium  
hunting grounds in Western Canada.  
[89] As a consequence, WHGR “has long been known as a producer of tremendous genetics  
going back 20 years to when there was a boom…in the elk industry, and “it was to their  
advantage to produce large bulls that they would then move…to their hunt areas.”  
[90] In 2009, as a result of a CWD identification, WHGRs “entire herd was destroyed.”  
Compensation discussions went well and “compensation was paid in the neighbourhood of  
$5,300 … for the hunt bulls on average for 102 bulls. WHGR regarded this as fair  
compensation.  
[91] The primary business of WHGR is the hunt business, although it does sell velvet, and  
also sells meat from those animals that are part of the annual cull.  
[92] In 2013, WHGR had $91,000 in meat sales, $120,000 in velvet sales, and $275,000 in  
hunt sales. So primarily, Mr. Wehrkamp says, it is a hunt business.  
[93] CFIA agreed that the average total hunt sales for the five years preceding 2014 was 31  
hunts.  
Page: 37  
[94] Mr. Wehrkamp described how hunt sales are handled through a broker. WHGR agrees to  
provide a bull through the broker. The money is all through the broker. The hunter hunts the bull  
and pays the broker. At the end of the season or at intervals the broker sends a cheque to  
WHGR but “it doesn’t specify the - - traditionally the broker is under no obligation to provide  
this level of detail to the hunt farm.”  
[95] Meat production is “simply the method that is used to cull animals from the herd.”  
[96] Mr. Wehrkamp says that, based on the revenue generated, it is clear that WHGR “is not a  
meat farm. It is a hunt farm. It is a velvet farm, and the meat process is used to cull surplus  
animals and animals of lesser quality.”  
[97] Following the 2009 depopulation, WHGR was forced to source animals from a variety of  
farms. They could not get all animals from a common farm and so, “in an effort to move forward  
as quickly as they could to restock and get the herd numbers back up, they purchased animals  
over a period of years from a variety of farms.”  
[98] The animals were “block-purchased mainly from producers who were distressed, who  
were - - had large numbers of animals that wanted to… sell animals.”  
[99] WHGR purchased 17 elk bulls on April 3, 2014 during the evaluation proceedings and  
provided receipts because “by this time, it was painfully obvious that the only consideration that  
Page: 38  
CFIA was prepared to make was consideration for meat sales.” These bulls were purchased “at  
$4,264 a pieceand there were twelve 2007 bulls, which would make them 7-years-old in 2014.  
[100] Mr. Wehrkamp says that the culling process used at WHGR was of extreme importance  
in increasing the value of the animals acquired after the 2009 depopulation. This means that “of  
the animals that were accumulated from the period of the depopulation…2009 to 2013, 15  
percent of those animals were culled as low producers and animals that did not meet the needs of  
the farm. Quite simply put, the animals that remain then have greater value than the original  
herd….”  
[101] Apart from the 901W Stinson bull, and the 17 elk bulls purchased in 2014, WHGR would  
not provide CFIA with purchase receipts from the animals purchased after 2009 because, in  
WHGRs view, those receipts were irrelevant to the 2014 evaluation because of the annual  
culling process. However, Mr. Wehrkamp confirms his understanding that these animals were  
purchased by WHGR “for close to meat prices.”  
[102] WHGR was compensated for 266 bulls in total.  
[103] Mr. Wehrkamp says that WHGR “probably …may have” received receipts for the  
animals that were purchased.  
[104] WHGR had receipts from velvet sales but did not provide them.  
Page: 39  
[105] Mr. Wehrkamp emphasizes that a purchase receipt for a block-purchase “does not by  
itself have any indicationof whether the bull is a meat bull, a hunt bull or velvet bull. Its  
impossible to determine:  
These bulls were bought without antlers on their head, and when  
you buy a block of animalsyou are going to have some poor  
bulls, youll have some average bulls and youll have some  
superior bulls. The information - - to provide a purchase receipt  
that cannot substantiate what is being requested is a fools  
business.  
[106] A receipt for a block-purchase “shows an average price, a block price, and therefore it’s  
irrelevant to the discussion of what the bull is worth two and three years after the animals been  
on the farm…and… as the bull ages, their value increases. What value does that receipt have?”  
(d)  
The Evaluation Process  
[107] Mr. Wehrkamp says that CFIA failed