Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Canada (No. 1), (1986) 1 F.T.R. 63 (TD)

JudgeCullen, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 20, 1986
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1986), 1 F.T.R. 63 (TD)

Monsanto Can. Inc. v. Can. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 63 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Minister of Agriculture

(T-51-86)

Indexed As: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Canada (No. 1)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

January 23, 1986.

Summary:

The Minister of Agriculture cancelled all registrations respecting the use of alachlor, a chemical used in pesticides, but stated that he would grant temporary registrations for 1985. Monsanto Canada Inc., a manufacturer of alachlor products, obtained a temporary registration which was to expire at the end of 1985. A review board was set up under the Pest Control Products Regulations to review the use of alachlor. When it became apparent that the board's review would last after the expiry of the temporary registration, Monsanto requested that the temporary registration be extended during the review period. The review board held that it had no authority to consider the extension and the Minister also refused to extend the registration. Monsanto applied under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act for an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to forthwith refer to the review board for a hearing the Minister's refusal to grant a temporary or other registration of Monsanto's alachlor products. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the order of mandamus.

Administrative Law - Topic 3754

Judicial review - Mandamus - Public officials and boards - Respecting statutory duty - Minister of Agricultural - Pest Control Products Regulations - The Minister of Agri culture cancelled registrations respecting the use of alachlor, a chemical used in pesticides, but granted Monsanto a temporary registration until the end of 1985 - A review board was set up to review the use of alachlor - When it became apparent that the review would be lengthy, Monsanto requested that the temporary registration be extended during the hearing - The review board held that it had no authority to consider the temporary registration and the Minister also refused the extension - Monsanto applied for mandamus - The Federal Court, Trial Division, granted the order of mandamus and directed the Minister to forthwith refer the issue of the extension of the temporary registration or other registration to the review board under ss. 21 to 23 of the Pest Control Products Regulations.

Cases Noticed:

Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada et al., [1980] 2 F.C. 458, refd to. [para. 19].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 20].

Barcrest Farms Inc. v. Minister of Agriculture, [1983] 1 F.C. 102, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-10.

Pest Control Products Regulations, Cons. Regs. of Can. 1978, c. 1253, sect. 20 [para. 5]; sect. 21, sect. 23, sect. 24, sect. 25 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Appearances: Roger T. Hughes and John N. Allport, for the applicant;

J.E. Thompson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sim, Hughes, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

F. Iacobucci, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 20, 1986, before Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 23, 1986:

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT