Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment and Climate Change)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Laskin, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A.
• Date: 09 March 2016
• Citation: 2016 ONCA 283,(2016), 348 O.A.C. 29 (CA)
• Subject Matter: STATUTES,COURTS,PRACTICE
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Grain Farmers v. Ont. (2016), 348 O.A.C. 29 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.031

Grain Farmers of Ontario (applicant/appellant) v. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (respondent/respondent)

(C61289; 2016 ONCA 283)

Indexed As: Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment and Climate Change)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A.

April 20, 2016.

Summary:

The Province of Ontario amended Regulation 139/15 made under the Pesticides Act, to sharply reduce the use of neonicotinoids (i.e., treated seeds which were believed to have a toxic effect on bees and other pollinators). The Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), which represented Ontario farmers, applied under rule 14.05(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for a declaration interpreting the Regulation. GFO also brought a motion to stay the Regulation pending the determination of the application. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a cross-motion to strike out GFO's notice of application as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision with neutral citation, 2015 ONSC 6581, dismissed GFO's motion for a stay of the Regulation. The court granted Ontario's cross-motion to strike, holding that the GFO's application disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court, therefore, dismissed GFO's application. GFO appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 2022

Jurisdiction - Conditions precedent - Requirement of justiciable issue - The Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) applied under Civil Procedure Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a Pesticides Act Regulation, which sharply reduced the use of neonicotinoids (i.e., treated seeds) - There was no challenge to the constitutionality of the regulation or its validity - GFO submitted that where a party's rights depended on the interpretation of an ambiguous regulation, rule 14.05(3)(d) authorized that party to apply for a determination of its rights - A motions judge stuck GFO's application, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - GFO appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Regulation was not ambiguous and GFO had not identified a genuine dispute about the farmers' rights and obligations - There was no justiciable issue - Rule 14.05(3)(d) did not provide free-standing jurisdiction where an interpretative question was raised - To grant the remedy that GFO sought would be tantamount to amending a regulation through interpretation, a remedy well outside the court's discretionary power to order declaratory relief.

Courts - Topic 2026

Jurisdiction - Conditions precedent - Requirement of controversy or dispute - [See Courts - Topic 2022 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Courts - Topic 2022 ].

Practice - Topic 5652

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - When available - General - [See Courts - Topic 2022 ].

Statutes - Topic 5356

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Interpretation - General - [See Courts - Topic 2022 ].

Counsel:

Eric Gillespie and Karen Dawson, for the appellant;

Sandra Nishikawa and Domenico Polla, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 9, 2016, before Laskin, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Miller, J.A., on April 20, 2016.