Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al., (1994) 174 N.R. 37 (FCA)

• Judge: Mahoney, Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: July 08, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (FCA)

PPWC v. Can. (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Application under section 18 of the Federal Court Act and the Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-9, as amended by 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), and the Pest Control Products Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1253;

And In The Matter Of a Decision by a Registration Officer (Pesticides Directorate) dated October 19, 1988.

The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada Local 8, Kenneth Jupe, on his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the PPWC, Local 8 (applicants/respondents) v. Minister of Agriculture Canada, Pesticides Directorate of Agriculture Canada (respondents/appellants) and Buckman Laboratories Canada Ltd. (intervenor)

(A-1153-91)

Indexed As: Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Mahoney, Desjardins and

McDonald, JJ.A.

July 8, 1994.

Summary:

Agriculture Canada approved registration of the pesticide "Busan 30WB" under ss. 13 and 18 of the Pest Control Products Regula­tions. The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, applied for certiorari to quash the registration.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 50 F.T.R. 43, allowed the application and quashed regis­tration. The Minister of Agriculture ap- pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - Duty of fairness - Rea­sonable expectation or legitimate expecta­tion - Agriculture Canada undertook to have Health and Welfare Canada partici­pate in the decision-making process of ensuring the safety and effectiveness of a pesticide before Agriculture Canada made the pesti­cide available to the public - When asked to register a particular pesti­cide, Agricul­ture Canada requested Health and Wel­fare Canada's views and com­ments, but registered the pesticide without considering those views - The trial judge quashed the regis­tration, holding that Agriculture Ca­nada's undertaking to involve Health and Welfare Canada in the deci­sion-mak­ing process gave rise to a rea­sonable ex­pectation that the under­taking would be honoured - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Practice - Topic 7470.5

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Enti­tlement to - Public interest cases - The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, successfully applied to quash registration of a pesticide - The Minister appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The union sought solicitor and client costs on the basis of the paucity of funds available to them and the public interest nature of the case - The court held that solicitor and client costs on appeal was the exception, rather than the rule - The court stated that the circum­stances did not justify awarding solicitor and client costs - The court opined that public interest groups, like all other liti­gants, must be prepared to accept some responsibility for the costs of litigation - See paragraphs 43 to 45.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8014

Hazardous products - Pest control prod­ucts - Registration - General - The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, applied to quash registration of a pesti­cide by Agriculture Canada - The trial judge quashed registration where the Min­ister (or his delegates) failed to make a determination of the sufficiency of the information concerning the pesticide so as to permit the product's evaluation or as­sessment (i.e., they did not carry out the first step in the evaluation process required by the Pest Control Product Regulations) - Further, the registration approval was not based on a complete data package - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge erred in quashing registration on the ground of insufficient information - The court stated that "once the necessary information is before the Minister, a court of law has no jurisdiction to question the sufficiency of the information" - See paragraph 25.

Cases Noticed:

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Minister of Economic Development (1982), 44 N.R. 354; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 558 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. François Xavier (Rural Municipality), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 164; 61 N.R. 321; 36 Man.R.(2d) 215; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 147, refd to. [para. 25].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Ruddock, [1987] 2 All E.R. 518, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 2].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Khan (Asif Ma­hood), [1985] 1 All E.R. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 2].

Gaw v. Commissioner of Corrections (1986), 2 F.T.R. 122; 19 Admin. L.R. 137 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Bawolak v. Exroy Resources Ltd. (1992), 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 137 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Lehndorff United Properties (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Edmonton (City) (1993), 146 A.R. 37; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Pollard et al. v. Surrey (District) et al. (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 81; 43 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Sierra Club of Western Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1991), 83 D.L.R.(4th) 708 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Furey et al. v. Board of Education (Roman Catholic) of Conception Bay Centre et al. (1993), 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328; 339 A.P.R. 328; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 455 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 3].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 38].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

Lidder v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 2 F.C. 621; 136 N.R. 254 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

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, refd to. [para. 44].

Finlay v. Canada, [1990] 2 F.C. 790; 115 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 11 [para. 23].

Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-9, sect. 2, sect. 5 [para. 13].

Pest Control Products Act Regulations (Can.), Pest Control Products Regula­tions, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1253, sect. 9(2)(a) [para. 5, footnote 1]; sect. 13, sect. 18 [para. 15]; sect. 20 [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Agriculture Canada, Pesticides in Perspective (1985), generally [para. 20].

Counsel:

Gunnar O. Eggertson, for the appellant;

Judith C. Lee, for the respondent;

Dale B. Pope, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Judith C. Lee, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the respondent;

Singleton Urquhart MacDonald, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on June 22, 1994, before Mahoney, Desjard­ins and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On July 8, 1994, Desjardins, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal.