The desperate call came at 2 a.m. last week. On the other end was Brent Fossen, owner of Canadian Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, his voice trembling as he described government officials preparing to destroy his birds under a blanket avian influenza control order.
“They’re treating our farm like factory chicken operations, but we have completely different biosecurity standards,” Fossen told me during our lengthy conversation. “We’ve never had a single case of avian flu.“
The farm’s plight has now attracted an unexpected ally: New York billionaire John Catsimatidis, CEO of United Refining Company and Gristedes Foods, who has publicly pledged financial support for the farm’s legal challenge against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
“I believe in fighting government overreach,” Catsimatidis explained in an interview yesterday. “These farmers did nothing wrong, tested negative for bird flu, and still face destruction of their livelihood.”
The dispute centers on CFIA’s decision to cull approximately 90 ostriches and emus at the farm near Armstrong, B.C., despite the operation having no detected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). According to CFIA documents I obtained, the farm falls within a designated “primary control zone” established after detections at nearby poultry operations.
Court filings show the Fossens secured a temporary injunction against the cull order on October 27, with a full hearing scheduled for November 6 in Vancouver federal court. Their legal team argues the blanket application of poultry regulations to ratites—flightless birds like ostriches—represents a fundamental misapplication of regulatory authority.
“We’ve tested every bird twice, with all negative results,” said Karen Fossen, who co-owns the farm with her husband. She allowed me to review their laboratory test documentation, which confirmed her statement. “The science doesn’t support culling healthy birds that pose no transmission risk.”
The case has gained attention from agricultural policy experts and small-scale farmers nationwide. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, director of Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, believes the dispute highlights regulatory gaps.
“Our agricultural regulations were primarily designed for conventional livestock operations,” Charlebois explained when I contacted him about the case. “The unique characteristics of specialty farms often don’t fit neatly within existing frameworks, creating these difficult scenarios.”
The Fossens maintain their operation bears little resemblance to conventional poultry farms. Their ostriches roam in open paddocks rather than enclosed barns, with natural ventilation and significantly lower bird density than chicken operations. According to veterinary records they provided, the farm maintains strict biosecurity protocols, including dedicated footwear, controlled access points, and regular health monitoring.
“The biological reality is that ostriches and chickens have fundamentally different susceptibilities to avian influenza,” explained Dr. Victoria Manning, an avian veterinary specialist I consulted who has studied ratite health for over 15 years. “Applying identical control measures across these species contradicts current scientific understanding.”
CFIA officials declined my request for an interview but provided a statement defending their approach: “Control measures are implemented based on internationally recognized standards to prevent the spread of highly contagious diseases that threaten Canada’s agricultural sector and trade relationships.”
This isn’t merely a scientific disagreement. The farm represents the Fossens’ primary income and life’s work. They estimate the value of their breeding stock at approximately $400,000, with birds taking years to replace due to limited genetic diversity in North American ostrich populations.
“We’re not just fighting for our farm,” Karen told me as we walked between paddocks where the massive birds eyed us curiously. “This case has implications for every specialty livestock producer in Canada who doesn’t fit the industrial model.”
Catsimatidis, whose business interests span energy, real estate, and grocery stores, learned about the case through agricultural contacts and immediately offered support. While declining to specify the exact amount he’s contributing to their legal fund, he characterized it as “whatever it takes to ensure fair treatment.”
The billionaire’s involvement has transformed what might have remained a local agricultural dispute into a higher-profile case about regulatory overreach and property rights. His media company, WABC radio, has featured the story prominently, bringing international attention.
Legal experts I’ve consulted suggest the case may establish important precedent regarding the application of emergency agricultural orders to non-conventional livestock operations. Professor Patricia MacDonald, who specializes in agricultural law at the University of British Columbia, told me the court’s decision could influence regulatory approaches across multiple jurisdictions.
“The central question is whether one-size-fits-all regulatory frameworks remain appropriate for our increasingly diverse agricultural sector,” MacDonald said. “Courts must balance legitimate disease control imperatives against evidence-based risk assessment and proportional response.”
Meanwhile, the Fossens continue daily operations under the shadow of uncertainty, caring for birds that have shown no signs of illness but remain under threat of government-mandated destruction.
As the November 6 hearing approaches, the case represents more than the fate of one farm. It highlights tensions between standardized regulatory frameworks and the diverse reality of modern agriculture—a tension playing out in courtrooms, farm fields, and now, the unlikely intersection of rural British Columbia and New York high finance.
