AMP Challenges: Responding to a CFIA Notice of Violation

What to do when CFIA issues an Administrative Monetary Penalty, and why the decision matters beyond the fine.

A Notice of Violation arrives with a fixed number and a 30-day deadline. The statutory ceilings ($5,000 for a minor violation, $15,000 for serious, $25,000 for very serious) make the financial exposure seem manageable. For many companies, the instinct is to pay and move on.

The more significant consequence is not the fine. It is what a confirmed violation does to your compliance record. CFIA's Establishment Risk Assessment (ERA) model uses compliance history to calculate risk scores, which drive inspection frequency. A company that pays an AMP acquires a confirmed violation that feeds the next gravity-value calculation if a future Notice is issued. Companies that treat an AMP as a bill to pay often end up paying for it again in elevated regulatory scrutiny. The long tail of a violation matters more than the fine.

For context on how AMPs fit within CFIA's broader enforcement framework, see CFIA Enforcement Actions: A Practical Guide.

How the Penalty Is Calculated

The Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAAMP Act) sets the ceiling for each violation category. The actual penalty is calculated through a gravity-value system under the AAAMP Regulations (SOR/2000-187) that adjusts a baseline using three factors: compliance history, degree of intent or negligence, and nature and extent of harm or risk.

A clean record, no evidence of intent, and no harm pushes the penalty toward the low end. Prior violations, evidence of intent, and actual harm push it toward the ceiling. The inputs that matter most, compliance history and characterization of intent, involve judgment calls. Those calls can be contested.

This is the structural reason why the decision of whether to pay or challenge has consequences beyond the immediate penalty. A violation you pay becomes a compliance history input in the next calculation. A second Notice in the same area starts from a higher baseline, potentially in a different violation category, with less room for mitigation.

The Four Response Options

Under the AAAMP Act, you have four options: pay the penalty (s. 9(1)), or elect one of three alternatives under s. 9(2). The AAAMP Regulations give you 30 days from service of the Notice to elect one. Missing that window triggers deemed commission under s. 9(3). That outcome is avoidable and worth avoiding.

Pay the Penalty

Payment is not a formal admission of guilt in the criminal sense, but it functions as one for regulatory purposes. A paid AMP becomes a confirmed violation on the compliance record.

Payment is the right call when the violation is accurately described, the penalty is at the minor level, your record is clean, and the cost of contesting clearly exceeds both the penalty and the compliance record consequence. Payment is the wrong call when the underlying facts are disputed, the violation is serious or very serious, or your company already carries prior violations.

Request a Compliance Agreement

A compliance agreement is available where the penalty is $2,000 or more (AAAMP Act, s. 9(2)(a)). It is a negotiated arrangement: the company agrees to specific corrective measures (an acknowledgment, a corrective action plan, a timeline, a verification mechanism) in exchange for CFIA not pursuing the penalty.

One point is commonly misunderstood. Under AAAMP Act s. 10(2), entering into a compliance agreement results in a deemed commission finding on the same statutory terms as payment. Its genuine advantages are elsewhere: it produces a forward-looking corrective action record, resolves the matter through structured remediation rather than a pure penalty, and demonstrates a credible commitment to addressing the underlying issue.

This option is underused. Many companies do not know compliance agreements exist. In practice, CFIA has an institutional interest in compliance, not just in collection. Where a company can present a credible corrective action plan that addresses the root cause, sets realistic milestones, and includes a verification mechanism, the Agency has reason to prefer a compliance agreement over a contested proceeding.

Request Ministerial Review

A Ministerial review is a written submissions process conducted by a delegate of the Minister of Agriculture. It is worth considering when the facts are disputed, when there are procedural irregularities in the Notice, or when the gravity-value factors do not accurately describe the company's conduct.

One procedural point matters: the two review paths are not symmetrical. Electing direct CART review forecloses Ministerial review. The reverse is not true. Under AAAMP Act s. 13(2), after the Minister decides, the person may still request CART review of that decision. Ministerial review first, then CART, remains available as a sequence.

Request CART Review

The Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal (CART) is an independent tribunal. It hears the matter fresh, makes its own findings, and can confirm, vary, or set aside the violation. The burden of proof is on CFIA.

CART review is the strongest option when the facts are genuinely disputed, when the penalty level justifies the procedural cost, or when the gravity-value calculation is contestable. Written submissions define the proceeding; the evidentiary record built at the outset shapes the outcome.

The Compliance Record: The Real Consequence

CFIA's ERA model uses compliance history as a primary input. A confirmed violation increases the risk score. A higher score increases inspection frequency (for how the compliance record plays out in a recall context, see Product Recalls: A Practical Guide). More frequent inspections create more opportunities for CFIA to find additional issues, which add to the record and push the score higher.

The trajectory matters as much as the individual entries. One minor violation in five years looks different from three violations in two years, even if the penalties are modest. The question your company needs to ask when evaluating whether to contest an AMP is not whether the fine is worth fighting. It is what a confirmed violation does to your regulatory standing over the next three to five years.

Where Counsel Fits

Counsel is not necessary for every AMP. A minor violation with an accurate description and a clean record may warrant payment.

Counsel changes the outcome when the gravity-value inputs are contestable (compliance history is wrong, intent has been mischaracterized, harm has been overstated); when a compliance agreement is the best available path and the terms need to be negotiated to be achievable; when concurrent proceedings make the AMP part of a larger regulatory problem and positions across proceedings need to be coordinated; or when CART review is being considered and the written submissions need to be prepared with the evidentiary record in mind.

The more interesting question is often not "should we fight this AMP?" but "what does this AMP do to our compliance position, and what is the best path to manage that consequence?" That is the analysis counsel should be driving.

GSJ&Co. has acted as counsel on AMP matters, including CART proceedings, since 2013. Contact us at info@gsjameson.com or +1(647)638-3994.

Response Checklist

For general guidance only. Not a substitute for legal advice.

Upon Receipt

☐ Note the 30-day response deadline and calendar it immediately

☐ Read the Notice: violation alleged, statutory basis, penalty amount, gravity-value factors applied

☐ Preserve all records relating to the alleged conduct

☐ Do not respond informally to CFIA before deciding which option to elect

☐ Obtain legal advice before electing a response option

Assessment

☐ Is CFIA's factual description accurate? Do your records support or contradict it?

☐ Is the gravity-value calculation correct? Compliance history accurate? Intent characterization fair?

☐ What is the current state of your compliance record? Prior violations in the same area?

☐ Are there concurrent proceedings that bear on how the AMP should be handled?

☐ What is the compliance record consequence of a confirmed violation over the next 3-5 years?

Election

☐ Elect within 30 days or risk deemed commission under s. 9(3)

☐ If requesting a compliance agreement: open discussions with CFIA promptly

☐ If requesting review: retain counsel before filing

Primary Authorities

Last updated: March 2026. This page is maintained by GSJ&Co. and updated when there are material changes to the AMP framework or CART practice.