114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), (2001) 271 N.R. 201 (SCC)
Judge | L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Thursday June 28, 2001 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2001), 271 N.R. 201 (SCC);2001 SCC 40;19 MPLR (3d) 1;[2001] ACS no 42;200 DLR (4th) 419;[2001] 2 SCR 241;171 NR 201;EYB 2001-24833;[2001] SCJ No 42 (QL);JE 2001-1306;106 ACWS (3d) 270;40 CELR (2d) 1;AZ-50098270 |
114957 Can. ltée v. Hudson (2001), 271 N.R. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.042
114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) and Services des espaces verts Ltée/Chemlawn (appellants) v. Town of Hudson (respondent) and Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Nature-Action Québec Inc. and World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Parents' Environmental Network, Healthy Lawns - Healthy People, Pesticide Action Group Kitchener, Working Group on the Health Dangers of the Urban Use of Pesticides, Environmental Action Barrie, Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition, Vaughan Environmental Action Committee and Dr. Merryl Hammond, and la Fédération interdisciplinaire de l'horticulture ornementale du Québec (interveners)
(26937; 2001 SCC 40)
Indexed As: 114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town)
Supreme Court of Canada
L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
June 28, 2001.
Summary:
A municipality adopted a bylaw that prohibited the purely aesthetic use of pesticides while allowing other uses, mainly for business or agricultural purposes. Some landscaping and lawn care companies brought a motion for a declaratory judgment to declare the bylaw inoperative and ultra vires the municipality's authority.
The Quebec Superior Court denied the motion. The moving parties appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1998] Q.J. No. 2546; J.E. 98-1855, dismissed the appeal. The moving parties appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Municipal Law - Topic 1402
Powers of municipalities - General principles - Source of powers - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the "general welfare" powers conferred by statute to municipalities - See paragraphs 18 to 20.
Municipal Law - Topic 1430
Powers of municipalities - Respecting land - Land use - Section 410(1) of the Cities and Towns Act (Que.) gave municipal councils power to make bylaws to "secure peace, order and good government, health and general welfare in the territory of the municipality" - A municipality adopted a bylaw that prohibited the purely aesthetic use of pesticides while allowing other uses, mainly for business or agricultural purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the statutory authority to enact the bylaw - LeBel, J. (Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring), stated that the subject matter of the bylaw lied within the ambit of normal local government activities - It concerned the use and protection of the local environment within the community - The regulation targeted problems of use of land and property, and addressed neighbourhood concerns that have always been within the realm of local government activity - See paragraphs 47 to 54.
Municipal Law - Topic 1481
Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Health - Section 410(1) of the Cities and Towns Act (Que.) gave municipal councils power to make bylaws to "secure peace, order and good government, health and general welfare in the territory of the municipality" - A municipality adopted a bylaw that prohibited the purely aesthetic use of pesticides while allowing other uses, mainly for business or agricultural purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the statutory authority to enact the bylaw - The bylaw responded to citizens' concerns about alleged health risks caused by non-essential uses of pesticides - Based on the distinction between essential and non-essential uses of pesticides, it was reasonable to conclude that the bylaw's purpose was to minimize the use of allegedly harmful pesticides in order to promote the health of inhabitants - This purpose fell squarely within the "health" component of s. 410(1) - See paragraphs 18 to 32.
Municipal Law - Topic 1583
Powers of municipalities - Exercise of powers - Conflict with provincial or federal legislation - Section 410(1) of the Cities and Towns Act (Que.) gave municipal councils power to make bylaws to "secure peace, order and good government, health and general welfare in the territory of the municipality" - The Pest Control Products Act and Regulations (Can.) authorized and regulated the importation, manufacturing, sale and distribution of pest control products in Canada - The Pesticides Act (Que.) provided that it prevailed over any inconsistent provision of any bylaw passed by a municipality - A municipality adopted a bylaw that prohibited the purely aesthetic use of pesticides while allowing other uses, mainly for business or agricultural purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the statutory authority to enact the bylaw and that the bylaw did not conflict with the federal and provincial legislation - See paragraphs 33 to 42, 46.
Municipal Law - Topic 3731
Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Purpose - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1481].
Municipal Law - Topic 3846
Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Discrimination - A municipality adopted a bylaw that prohibited the purely aesthetic use of pesticides while allowing other uses, mainly for business or agricultural purposes - Some landscaping and lawn care companies moved to have the bylaw declared inoperative and ultra vires the municipality's authority - They argued that the bylaw was discriminatory because of impermissible distinctions that affected their commercial activities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the statutory authority to enact the bylaw - The court stated that the bylaw did not appear as a purely prohibitory legal instrument and that this kind of regulation implied a necessary component of discrimination - See paragraphs 28, 29, 54 and 55.
Cases Noticed:
Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 1].
Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Hydro-Quebec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 3].
R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 18, 49].
R. v. Weir (1979), 26 O.R.(2d) 326 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 20].
Kuchma v. Tache (Rural Municipality), [1945] S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 21].
Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368; 58 N.R. 339; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 M.P.L.R. 220, refd to. [paras. 21, 49].
R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, dist. [para. 22].
Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298, consd. [paras. 23, 49].
Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, consd. [paras. 23, 53].
Scarborough v. R.E.F. Homes Ltd. (1979), 9 M.P.L.R. 255 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].
Allard Contractors Ltd. et al. v. Coquitlam (District) et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 371; 160 N.R. 249; 35 B.C.A.C. 241; 57 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 30].
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Nayudu, 1999 S.O.L. Case No. 53, refd to. [para. 32].
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, [1996] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 241, refd to. [para. 32].
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, consd. [para. 34].
M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 34, 46].
Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 193; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 361; 9 P.P.S.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 34].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Mississauga (City) (1981), 15 M.P.L.R. 212 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 37].
Uxbridge (Township) v. Timber Brothers Sand and Gravel Ltd. (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 484 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
British Columbia Lottery Corp. v. Vancouver (City) (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 129; 192 W.A.C. 129; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Barrie (City), [2000] O.T.C. 697; 46 O.R.(3d) 620 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].
Huot v. Ville de Saint-Jérome, J.E. 93-1052 (Que. Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].
2419-6388 Québec Inc. c. Saint-Michel Archange (Municipalité) et autres, [1992] R.J.Q. 875; 45 Q.A.C. 161 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].
Public School Boards Association (Alta.) v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 409; 260 N.R. 127; 266 A.R. 201; 228 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 49].
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 470; 267 N.R. 10; 144 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-19, sect. 410(1), sect. 412(32), sect. 463.1 [para. 9].
Hudson (Town), Bylaws, Bylaw 270, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 10 [para. 9].
Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-9, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(3), sect. 6(1) [para. 9].
Pest Control Products Act Regulations (Can.), Pest Control Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1253, sect. 45(1), sect. 45(2), sect. 45(3) [para. 9].
Pesticides Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-9.3, sect. 102, sect. 105, sect. 105.1, sect. 106, sect. 107 [para. 9].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development (1990), para. 7 [para. 31].
Cameron, James, and Abouchar, Juli, The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law, in The Precautionary Principle and International Law (1996), p. 52 [para. 32].
Canada, CEPA Issue Elaboration Paper No. 18 - CEPA and the Precautionary Principle/Approach (1995), p. 8 [para. 31].
Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 446 to 447 [para. 37, English version].
Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois, 3e éd., 1999, pp. 446 to 447 [para. 37, French version].
Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd. Ed. 1994, by Ruth Sullivan), pp. 53 [para. 27]; 330 [para. 30].
Duplessis, Yvon and Hétu, Jean, Les pouvoirs des municipalités en matière de protection de l'environnement, 2e éd., 1994, pp. 109 [para. 40]; 110 [para. 21]; 111 [para. 42].
Dussault, René and Borgeat, Louis, Administrative Law: A Treatise, vol. 1, (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 435 et seq. [para. 55, English version].
Dussault, René et Borgeat, Louis, Traité de droit administratif, 2e éd., 1985, t. 1, pp. 557 et s. [para. 55, French version].
Freestone, David and Hey, Ellen, Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle, in The Precautionary Principle and International Law (1996), p. 41 [para. 32].
Garant, Patrice, Droit administratif, 4e éd., 1996, vol. 1, pp. 407 et seq. [para. 55].
Hétu, Jean, Duplessis, Yvon et Pakenham, Dennis, Droit municipal: Principes généraux et contentieux, 1998, pp. 651 [para. 49]; 677 to 682 and 691 to 696 [para. 55].
Hoehn, Felix, Municipalities and Canadian Law: Defining the Authority of Local Governments (1996), pp. 17-23 [para. 53].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, vol. 1 (1997, updated 2000, release 1), p. 16-13 [para. 36].
Makuch, Stanley M., Canadian Municipal and Planning Law (1983), p. 115 [para. 18].
McIntyre, Owen and Mosedale, Thomas, The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law (1997), 9 J. Env. L. 221, p. 241 [para. 32].
Rogers, Ian McFee, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, Cum. Supp. to vol. 1 (2nd Ed. 1971, updated 2001, release 1), pp. 358, 364 [para. 49]; 367 [para. 18]; 387 [para. 26]; no. 63.16 [para. 36].
Swaigen, John, The Hudson Case: Municipal Power to Regulate Pesticides Confirmed by Quebec Courts (2000), 34 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 162, pp. 174 [para. 4]; 178 [para. 24].
World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987), pp. 220 [para. 3].
Counsel:
Gérard Dugré and Denis Manzo, for the appellants;
Stéphane Brière and Pierre Lepage, for the respondent;
Stewart A. G. Elgie and Jerry V. DeMarco, for the interveners Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Nature-Action Québec Inc. and World Wildlife Fund Canada;
Theresa A. McClenaghan and Paul Muldoon, for the interveners Toronto Environmental Alliance, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Parents' Environmental Network, Healthy Lawns -- Healthy People, Pesticide Action Group Kitchener, Working Group on the Health Dangers of the Urban Use of Pesticides, Environmental Action Barrie, Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition, Vaughan Environmental Action Committee and Dr. Merryl Hammond;
Jean Piette, for the intervener Fédération interdisciplinaire de l'horticulture ornementale du Québec.
Solicitors of Record:
Fraser Milner Casgrain, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellants;
Bélanger Sauvé, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;
Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Nature-Action Québec Inc. and World Wildlife Fund Canada;
Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners Toronto Environmental Alliance, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Parents' Environmental Network, Healthy Lawns -- Healthy People, Pesticide Action Group Kitchener, Working Group on the Health Dangers of the Urban Use of Pesticides, Environmental Action Barrie, Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition, Vaughan Environmental Action Committee and Dr. Merryl Hammond;
Ogilvy Renault, Québec, Quebec, for the intervener Fédération interdisciplinaire de l'horticulture ornementale du Québec ("FIHOQ").
This appeal was heard on December 7, 2000, by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on June 28, 2001, and the following reasons were filed:
L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier, Bastarache and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;
LeBel, J. (Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 44 to 56.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Morton c. Canada (Pêches et Océans),
...302, 80 Admin. L.R. (4th) 74; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 323; Lake Waseosa Ratepayers’ Association v. Piep......
-
Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., 2015 SCC 53
...v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 14, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 693; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc.......
-
Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), (2002) 175 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)
...81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 191]. 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. Public School Boards Association (Alta.) et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 409; 2......
-
Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61
...2 S.C.R. 112 ; Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616 ; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241 ; Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), 2004 SCC 54 , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152 ; Siemens v. M......
-
Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34
...Southern Alberta v. Calgary (City), 2004 SCC 19, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., 2000 SCC 13, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (Cit......
-
PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 281 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
...Act (Ont.), [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 120]. 114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409......
-
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, [2015] 3 SCR 327
...General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 23 , [2007] 2 S.C.R. 86 ; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241 ; M & D Farm Ltd. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961 ; referred to: Reference re Secessio......
-
Le Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général),
...Inc., 2005 SCC 65, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 14, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 693; R. v. Furtney, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89, (......
-
Federal Jurisdiction In Municipal Matters: What Happens When The Provinces Or Municipalities Step On Federal Toes?
...of municipal jurisdiction. Pesticides (Regulation of the Environment) 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 In this case, a by-law imposing restrictions on the use of pesticides within the Town of Hudson's boundaries, to specified locations and onl......
-
Recent Decision Affirms Importance Of Precautionary Principle
...in Canadamost notably with the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 and Castonguay Blasting Ltd. V Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52that recognizes the importance of the precautionary principle in informing t......
-
Recent Decision Affirms Precautionary Principle
...in Canadamost notably with the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 and Castonguay Blasting Ltd. V Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52that recognizes the importance of the precautionary principle in informing t......
-
Exceptional Circumstances: Court Of Appeal For British Columbia Finds New Exception To Reasonableness Review
...Highlands, BCSC at para. 192 and 209. 13. Vavilov at paras. 63-64. 14. 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town),2001 SCC 40 at para. 15. Highlands, BCSC at paras. 142-150 and 156-175. 16. 2016 BCCA 432. 17. Highlands, BCSC at paras. 169-175. 18. Highlands, BCSC at......
-
Sources of International Law
...an (incorrectly) identiied rule of customary international law, see 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town) , 2001 SCC 40 at paras 30–32; such an approach was unnecessary since rules of customary international law are automatically incorporated into domestic commo......
-
Table of cases
...OF CASES 114957 Canada Ltee (Spraytech Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 ................................................................................................ 112 A-G v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd, [1920] AC 508 (HL) ....................................201 Alberta ......
-
Table of Cases
...of CaSES 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] S.C.J. No. 42, 200 D.L.R. (4th) 419 ......... 26, 40, 72, 292 340909 Ontario Ltd. v. Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd. (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 641 (H.C.J.) ............................................
-
Table of cases
...OF CASES 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] SCJ No 42, 200 DLR (4th) 419 ................. 25, 43, 77, 301 340909 Ontario Ltd v Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd (1990), 73 OR (2d) 641 (HCJ) ....................................................