|
The manufacture, sale,
storage and application of pesticides in Canada are regulated by both the
federal and provincial governments. However, with increasing concern about
the health impacts of pesticides, municipalities may wish to prevent or
limit pesticide use. Does a municipality have the power to enact a by-law
for this purpose?
The Ontario Superior Court
recently considered an attack by pesticide producers on a municipal by-law
purporting to regulate pesticide use within the boundaries of the
municipality. The by-law in question was expressed to be in response to the
“health risks associated with the use of pesticides” by prohibiting, subject
to specified exceptions, the application of pesticides within the
municipality. Persons contravening the by-law were subject to prosecution
and penalty under the Provincial Offences Act. Since under the Municipal Act
a municipality may only “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 application of the
pesticide producers attacked the by-law on the basis that federal and
provincial statutes and regulations already deal with pesticides.
In dismissing the
application, the Court was satisfied that the by-law was primarily directed
at the health, safety and well-being of the municipality’s inhabitants and
noted that the provincial government had declined the municipality’s request
under the Environmental Protection Act for authority to enact such a by-law
for “the protection or conservation of the natural environment”. The Court
concluded that, although federal legislation dealt with the importing,
exporting, manufacturing, selling, registration, packaging and labelling of
pesticides, and provincial legislation dealt with pesticide storage and
licensing of applicators, neither federal nor provincial legislation
purported to prohibit or limit the use of pesticides within the
municipality. With respect to the effect to be given to municipal by-laws,
the court referred to earlier Supreme Court of Canada authority which
stated:
“ … courts must respect
the responsibility of elected municipal bodies to serve the people who
elected them and exercise caution to avoid substituting their views of
what is best for the citizens of those in municipal councils. Barring
clear demonstration that a municipal decision was beyond its powers,
courts should not so hold in cases where powers are not expressly
conferred, but may be implied”.
The court also referred to
other Supreme Court of Canada authority that:
“ … law making and
implementation are often best achieved at a level government that is not
only effective, but also closest to the citizens affected and thus most
responsive to their needs to local distinctiveness and to population
diversity.
“ … the correct course is
to look at the precise provisions and the way they operate in the precise
case and ask: Can they co-exist in this particular case in their
operation? If so, they should be allowed to co-exist, and each should do
so in its own parallel regulation of one aspect of the same activity to
two different aspects of the same activity”.
Accordingly, the court
concluded that:
“The By-law simply
prohibits the use of pesticides (with certain specified exemptions) within
the boundaries of the (municipality). I see nothing in any other
legislation which conflicts with that. Unquestionably, other statutes deal
with pesticides, their manufacture, licensing, packaging and use, but in
no instance do they do so in a manner which conflicts with this By-law.”
Federal, provincial and
municipal governments may properly regulate pesticides within their
respective spheres of legislative jurisdiction. A municipality concerned
about health impacts of pesticides has the power to prevent or limit
pesticide use. |