Croplife Can. v. Toronto, (2005) 198 O.A.C. 35 (CA)

• Judge: Goudge, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 13, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 198 O.A.C. 35 (CA)

Croplife Can. v. Toronto (2005), 198 O.A.C. 35 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.049

Croplife Canada (appellant) v. City of Toronto (respondent)

(C41220)

Indexed As: Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Goudge, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A.

May 13, 2005.

Summary:

Croplife Canada, a trade association which included pesticide producers such as Dow Agro Sciences Canada Inc., Dupont Canada Inc. and others, brought an application to quash City of Toronto Bylaw No. 456-2003 (the Bylaw). This Bylaw purported to regulate the use of pesticides within the boundaries of the City of Toronto. The applicant argued that the Bylaw was ultra vires the city. The city, argued that the Bylaw was intra vires the city and that it was passed pursuant to the provisions of section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (S.O. 2001, chap. 25).

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2003] O.T.C. 1074, dismissed the application. Croplife Canada appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 1481

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Health - Section 130 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provided: "A municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or any other Act for purposes related to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality" - The City of Toronto, acting pursuant to s. 130, passed a bylaw regulating pesticide use within City limits - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the bylaw was intra vires the City where: (1) there was no specific municipal power to regulate pesticide use contained in the Municipal Act or in any other Ontario statute; and (2) the bylaw was not in conflict with federal or provincial legislation in that: (a) it was possible to comply with the bylaw and the federal and provincial legislations; and (b) the bylaw did not frustrate the purpose of the federal Pest Control Products Act, which was to make certain pesticides available by regulating their manufacture and labelling but did not require that everyone be able to use every regulated product in an unrestricted way - See paragraphs 38 to 67, 72 to 74.

Municipal Law - Topic 1526

Powers of municipalities - Construction of powers - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the evolution of the interpretation of the scope of municipal bylaw making authority - See paragraphs 16 to 29.

Municipal Law - Topic 1526

Powers of municipalities - Construction of powers - General - Section 130 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provided: "A municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or any other Act for purposes related to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality" - A motion judge applied a broad and purposive approach to the interpretation of s. 130 when he ruled that the City of Toronto's bylaw regulating pesticide use within City limits was intra vires - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision and held that "absent an express direction to the contrary in the Municipal Act, 2001, which is not there, the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court is clear that municipal powers, including general welfare powers, are to be interpreted broadly and generously within their context and statutory limits, to achieve the legitimate interests of the municipality and its inhabitants. The trial judge did not err by adopting this approach to the general welfare power in s. 130" - See paragraphs 30 to 37.

Municipal Law - Topic 3205

Bylaws - General principles - Rule against circumvention - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the phrase "matters not specifically provided for in this Act or any other Act" found in s. 130 of the new Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 was an extended version of the rule against circumvention from the old Municipal Act - The court added that under s. 130, a matter could be regulated by bylaw so long as there was no other specifically related bylaw making power elsewhere in the new Act or in any other Act - See paragraphs 38 to 50.

Municipal Law - Topic 3205

Bylaws - General principles - Rule against circumvention - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1481 ].

Words and Phrases

Matters not specifically provided for in this Act or any other Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the phrase "matters not specifically provided for in this Act or any other Act" found in s. 130 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 - See paragraphs 38 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, consd. [para. 2].

Verdun (City) v. Sun Oil Co., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 222, consd. [para. 16].

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. [para. 18].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 18].

Howard v. Toronto (City) (1928), 61 O.L.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Associated Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Kuchma v. Tache (Rural Municipality), [1945] S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 18].

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; 2000 SCC 13, consd. [para. 19].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 28].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al.(2005), 331 N.R. 116; 257 Sask.R. 171; 342 W.A.C. 171; 2005 SCC 13, consd. [para. 28, footnote 1].

Toronto (City) v. Goldlist Properties Inc. et al. (2003), 178 O.A.C. 11; 67 O.R.(3d) 441 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Morrison v. Kingston (City) (1937), 69 C.C.C. 251 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

R. v. Kingston (City) et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 143; 70 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests) et al. (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 58; 303 W.A.C. 58; 15 B.C.L.R.(4th) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, sect. 9(1) [para. 8]; sect. 14 [para. 9]; sect. 130 [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development (1990), para. 7 [para. 26].

Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th Ed.), generally [para. 16].

Hansard (Ont.) - see Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), pp. 16-7 to  16-13 [para. 58].

Makuch, Stanley M., Craik, Neil and Leisk, Signe B., Canadian Municipal Planning Law (2nd Ed. 2004), p. 82 [para. 16].

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (October 18 2001), p. 1350 [para. 6].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 395 [para. 46].

Counsel:

J. Scott Maidment, Jennifer Dent and Lisa Parliament, for the appellant;

Graham Rempe, Susan L. Ungar and Mark Siboni, for the respondent;

Justin Duncan and Robert V. Wright, for the intervenors, World Wildlife Fund and Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

Paul Muldoon and Marlene Cashin, for the intervenors, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Association for Physicians for the Environment, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence and Ontario College of Family Physicians.

This appeal was heard on November 4, 2004, by Goudge, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Feldman, J.A., and released on May 13, 2005.