Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 9: Closing Off With What Alternative Media Didn’t Report

The saga at Universal Ostrich Farms has come to an end, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear a final Appeal. The birds are now dead, and many people are still angry from it. This will be the last of it, at least here and will attempt to cover some points mostly left out by “alternative” media.

***As an aside, most people didn’t want the birds killed. I didn’t. However, blame for this falls on the owners who turned them into test subjects. And the farm — for lack of a better term — became an open air biolab.

Probably the most shocking is that the owners attempted to cover up dozens of bird deaths, and that it wasn’t their first time doing this. Had a neighbour not reported this, it’s likely that few would ever have known.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the series for more information.

For anyone not too up to date with the story, here are some key events:

• The CFIA, or Canadian Food Inspection Agency, issued an order at the end on 2024 to cull approximately 400 ostriches (or some amount) from a farm in the Interior B.C. This was on the basis that the ostriches had the “H5N1 virus” based on “PCR testing”.
• The farmers filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court.
• The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of the culling until the case was heard.
• The Federal Court (Justice Zinn) dismissed the Application in May.
• The Federal Court of Appeal issued another stay in June, until the Appeal was heard.
• The Appeal was dismissed in August.
• The Court of Appeal refuses a further stay in September.
• September, the Supreme Court has issued a stay of their own, however, the CFIA will retain possession of the farm until the proceedings are concluded.
• November 6th, SCC refuses to hear the Appeal. The birds are killed that night.

Most of the documents from the Supreme Court are attached below. The arguments seemed to revolve largely around whether there should have been reconsideration.

To clarify, litigants don’t automatically have the right to be heard. They must file an Application for Leave, and persuade the Court their case is worth hearing. Considering that only about 5% to 7% are granted each year, the odds are never good.

FROM CATHY FURNESS’ JUNE 2025 AFFIDAVIT:
(0) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(1) UOF Furness Call Log
(2) UOF Furness Declaration An Infected Place
(3) UOF Furness Exemption Request Documentation
(4) UOF Furness Denial Of Exemption Request
(5) UOF Furness Requirement To Dispose
(6) UOF Furness Notice Of Violation Failure To Report
(7) UOF Furness Notice Of Violation Failure To Comply
(8) UOF Furness Inspection Report
(9) UOF Furness More Inspection Reports
(10) UOF Furness Another Inspection Report
(11) UOF Furness Inspection Report Protestors

1. It Was A Neighbour, Not The Farmers Who Reported

This was from Exhibit “S” of the Furness Affidavit. It was a neighbour, not the farmers themselves who reported that ostriches were dying. This is a serious problem, as owners are expected to report deaths and suspected outbreaks.

2. Bilinski Covered Up Previous Suspected Outbreak

This is from Exhibit “Z” of the Furness Affidavit. On January 2nd, 2025, Bilinski reveals for the first time that there was a suspected outbreak 2 years ago, and some birds had died. He claimed that the survivors had immunity.

3. All But 2 Deceased Were Too Decomposed To Test

This is from Exhibit “T” of the Furness Affidavit. A lot of noise had been made about the CFIA only testing 2 dead birds. But according to their inspection report, only 2 were able to be tested on. The rest were either severely decomposed, or had been attacked by scavengers.

4. No Evidence Brought Forward For Exemption

This is from Exhibit “EE” in the Furness Affidavit. A package was sent to the farmers outlining the information that would be required to support a request for an exemption. Instead, the information they provided to the CFIA more closely resembled a business plan.

5. Farmers Claim Not To Know How Many Birds There Are

This is from Exhibit “G” of the Furness Affidavit. Bilinski and Espersen received a visit on January 20th, 2025. Among other things, they were asked how many birds there were in total. They answered that they didn’t know, and would have to count. This is an issue that would come up repeatedly.

Consider that Espersen and Bilinski claimed to have about 450 birds at one point. And again, they’re not sure. The CFIA only counted 314 when the culling was done. Does this mean that nearly 1/3 died over the last year? Were some sold or otherwise moved off the property?

6. Farmers Fined Twice For Not Following Rules

These are from Exhibits “RR” and “SS” of the Furness Affidavit. The farm was fined twice. The first was for not reporting deaths and a suspected outbreak, and the other was for not following quarantine protocols. Reading the package as a whole, it’s surprising that UOF wasn’t hit with many more tickets. If the CFIA had been vindictive, they very easily could have.

Come to think of it, it’s surprising that the CFIA didn’t just try to seize the farm a lot sooner. From what they describe in their inspections, few, if any health protocols were followed.

7. Decades Of Debt And Foreclosure

This was somewhat addressed in Part 4. The farmers here seem to owe everyone money, so it’s worth wondering if and how that would ever be paid back. It also raises questions about whether creditors could have seized the birds, had their not been killed. After all, they were essentially the only asset. They don’t own the land, so it’s not like that could be sold.

As one example: June 2023, Espersen and Bilinski were ordered to pay $244,323 in a foreclosure done by consent.

(A) 0752063 Bilinski Petition To Court
(B) 0752063 Bilinski Notice Of Application
(C) 0752063 Requisition General
(D) 0752063 Bilinski Consent Order Of Foreclosure

Rocky Mountain Ostrich, Espersen’s former company, was ordered to pay $61,134 in 1996 by the Federal Court. In 2002, another $24,310 was ordered.

When the dust finally settles, will creditors go after the GoFundMe or GiveSendGo accounts? It appears to be the only money they have. This probably isn’t what donors expected.

8. There Never Was A Happy Ending For The Ostriches

While it’s easy to be sympathetic, the reality is those birds were dead anyway. They were effectively a lab experiment, and would have been killed afterwards. Even without all this, apparently is was their practice to kill animals… by Halal methods?

Note: This isn’t my video, but was circulating on X (formerly, Twitter). This is Rick Walker of Maverick News. He gives many good takes on this case.

About Those Claims Evidentiary Review Not Sought…

There have been comments online that efforts should have been made to attempt to introduce new evidence for the Appeal(s). This is worth mentioning.

When the Federal Court of Appeal stayed the culling temporarily, their Order specified that there was not to be any new material sent. Instead, the existing Application Records (evidence) would simply be reused. While the Supreme Court *may* have allowed new evidence, they refused to hear the case anyway.

One has to ask if this farm would have enjoyed anywhere near the support it did, had the media covering it been transparent. Instead of endless stories about heartbreak, it would have been nice (or at least necessary) to get a complete account of how this farm operated.

Finally, there’s that run-in that counsin Danny Bilinski also had with the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) back in 2002. Dan and David tried raising money, but weren’t transparent with investors about ongoing financial problems.

(A) https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/-/media/PWS/Resources/Enforcement/Decisions/2002/2002-BCSECCOM-102.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DOCUMENTS (LEAVE TO APPEAL APPLICATION)
(1) UOF SCC Decisions Of FC And FCA
(2) UOF SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) UOF SCC Notice Of Name
(4) UOF SCC Application No Prohibition On Publication
(5) UOF SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(6) UOF SCC Memorandum Arguments For Leave To Appeal
(7) UOF SCC Notification Opposing Leave
(8) UOF SCC Response To Application For Leave
(9) UOF SCC Applicants Reply Memorandum
(10) UOF SCC Applicants Reply

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)
(3) UOF FCA Appeal Denied (August, 2025)
(4) UOF FCA Motion To Stay Dismissed (September, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(10) UOF APPEAL Order Staying Cullings Pending Appeal (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/