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.
- Following the FCA refusal to issue a further stay, the CFIA moved in (with RCMP protection) and seized control of the farm.
- 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/
Discover more from Canuck Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent summary of the other side of the story. The feds did not handle this matter in a transparent and sensible manner. From the outset, the public had the right to know what was going on at the farm…it appears clear that it was involved in illegal gain-of-function research with a Japanese research company.
In matters of public interest, all documents and facts must be put on the table for the public to review. The way this rolled out, it we heard only from the bird owners who manipulated alternative media. Had we heard fact and seen evidence before instead of after the fact, the owners would have not seen that support and moreover, would not have attracted donations.
Who was that speaking in the video and when?
Assuming you mean the first video: I believe it’s Katie Pasitney talking to David Krayden (Stand On Guard). Not sure of the date, I’d have to find the full original.
What do you think of the following perspective?
https://x.com/jaygenxer/status/1988623663478751675?s=49&t=tF0SNyAC_JbzqBkaWlJRWw
I get that there may have been some mismanagement, but are these claims legit, or are they part of the greater effort to subvert rights and freedoms?
It has been hard to get a complete accurate picture of what went on here, but on the face of it, it does seem like there are some major injustices taking place.
The point of this series is that the truth is night-and-day different from what the public is being led to believe by “independent” reporting. All of the documents attached were available for months, but they chose not to cover them. Reading the inspection reports, it’s stunning how lenient the CFIA was (such as for attempting to cover up deaths). Despite Pasitney doing dozens of interviews, it never seemed like she was 100% transparent.
Interestingly, they never went hard into the idea that PCR testing is fraud. Pelech never did. Then again, their business model is that these birds are developing antibodies to Covid. This is the same virus many of their supporters (ex-convoy protesters) don’t believe exists, but that is lost on them.
They’re telling the courts that they take quarantine measures seriously. Meanwhile, large numbers of the public visited or camped out over the summer. This included children. There are also endless fundraisers and even music festivals. And if there were wealthy business partners involved, and eggs were worth $48,000/each, why the constant e-begging?
CFIA claims that they were effectively chased away from the area by threats from protesters. They only returned (with a warrant) after FCA dismissed their appeal, and the FCA refused another stay. The SCC issued one of their own though.
Is there some grand conspiracy at play? Who knows these days?
Personally, it’s not a matter of 100% believing the CFIA, but NOT believing the farmers at all.
What canuck law does or doesn’t mention; a lab in Quebec, Canada was bought out and shut down with an NDA while doing the Covid-related antibody testing; the Japanese scientist was or is doing the same live animal experimentation, the Japanese prime minister was assassinated after rejecting the ‘jab’ (as were several African presidents), PCR testing is a fraud, as we know, and any further independent testing was ruled out by any means by the CFIA under enormous financial penalty and I believe a jail term, the absence of a qualified veterinarian before and after the massacre to ensure a humane way of doing the cull…
Hello again, please try this!