The court has fined three connected meat-packing companies, led by Ryding-Regency Meat Packers, a total of $650,000 for “brazen disregard” of Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations.
Ryding-Regency is bankrupt and Canadian Select Meats and Beef Boutique are out of business.
An agreed statement of facts outlines how lab test results detecting E. coli 0167-H7 in 61 samples were swapped with results indicating the meat in question had no food-poisoning bacteria and the meat was sold to Canadians, Americans and Chinese.
The prosecution noted that the food-poisoning bacteria is the same one involved in the deadly drinking water crisis in Walkerton in 2010.
No illnesses were identified as linked to this tainted meat.
All charges against three company principals - Anthony Pertronaci, Ellen Cosman and Chuck Oulton - were withdrawn as part of the deal between prosecution and defence lawyers.
It took them four years to arrive at an agreed statement of facts.
The defence lawyer said the CFIA delegated its authority to a Ryding-Regency employee who falsified the documents without the knowledge of the owners.
The infractions persisted from May, 2018, to September, 2019, before a CFIA inspector became curious about discrepancies in the dates of the all-clear lab results and the certificates for the meat to be marketed.
After a search warrant to obtain company documents were matched with documents from the independent lab, the prosecution concluded that 61 certificates were involved for 74,000 kilograms of beef.
That prompted the judge to call it "brazen disregard" for CFIA rules and regulations and said had there not been an agreed statement of facts, he would have handed a much more severe sentence.
The defence lawyer argued that only beef trim, or about one per cent, was involved.
Ryding-Regency shipped to Canadian Select Meats and Beef Boutique which conducted further processing. The misleading lab results applied to all three companies.
The court decision, which was oral, was delivered in August and it has taken Ontario Farmer since then to discover the decision. The Canadian Food Inspection was asked repeatedly about the decision and said it did not have a copy.
It took engagement of a court transcription service to obtain the decision.
