Law360 Canada ( October 6, 2025, 9:40 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants from orders dismissing a series of substantially identical actions. The actions arose from regulatory changes to the Animal Health Act, which progressively rendered mink farming illegal in British Columbia, and which had the effect of putting the appellants, who were mink farmers, out of business. The changes were purportedly a reaction to the risk of farmed mink spreading respiratory viruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The actions brought by the appellants alleged misfeasance in public office and a constructive taking. The trial judge concluded that it was plain and obvious that the actions had no reasonable prospect of success. She dismissed the actions without liberty to amend. On appeal, the appellants alleged that the judge erred in her interpretation of the statutory scheme and failed to give effect to the pleading that the defendants knowingly and falsely disguised the purpose of the regulatory amendments for the protection of public health. The court framed the decisive issue on this aspect of the appeal to be whether the appellants pleaded, or could have pleaded, material facts that had a reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the passage of the enacting Order in Council (OIC) was an unlawful act under the enabling statutory mandate. If the appellants could not have discharged that burden, the actions must have been dismissed because an unlawful act was an essential and necessary element of the cause of action....