I believe there's a reluctance on behalf of many fish farm critics to not look at things objectively - with the tendency to side with speculation rather than facts. You are talking about these things that these managers are engaged which you may not agree with and interpret a certain way, but in this case that doesn't necessarily equate to wrongdoing or that safety was compromised. Where in these 600 emails does it show this inappropriate action put food safety at risk?
Now I'm not sure how many emails the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) went through, but if they came across correspondence which showed that testing quality was indeed compromised by this reshuffling then I would tend to see the CBAN's position differently, but what's described in the news article doesn't equate to wrongdoing which compromised safety. Arrogance may not be a nice trait, but it doesn't necessarily mean that things were done inappropriately. I have worked with few managers above me over the years that were not the best communicators, but it doesn't mean they were corrupt or didn't do a good job. Instead, the CBAN looks at some correspondence and extrapolates a narrative and conclusion which up until now is not based on any facts. In my opinion, when folks like the CBAN go down that road it draws into question their own credibility which may not matter with staunch aquaculture critics who are sold on it immediately, but it likely would with those they are trying to influence in order further their cause. You may not blame the CFIA lab tech or the Aquabounty employee caring for broodstock, but they unfortunately become part of the collateral damage brought on by these environmental groups because it draws into question the professionalism of these employees.
After reading the CBC article I personally don't see anything highly unreasonable with the request given that the viability of the eggs is finite. I have dealt with many labs over my career in both private and public settings and it's not unusual to try to request action on your samples as fast as possible or for the lab to switch priorities on their cliental. Jumping the cue doesn't necessarily mean that the people doing the testing are not doing the job they are entrusted to do. In my opinion, if we were talking about any other industry this would not have made headlines as vigorously or been mentioned here. However, when comes down to it, the roads all lead to the two questions I asked before. Facts should matter. If the CBAN feels there was inappropriate behaviour which compromised safety then the responsibility lies with them to show it, not the CFIA for disproving how the CBAN viewed the documents obtained under Access to Information.