Appeal Court Denies Stay of Regulation Under Pesticide Act - Key Court Rulings and Assessments

Sep 2, 2026

Uploaded by Gelato

An Ontario appeal decision refuses a stay of regulation under the Pesticides Act, upholding environmental limits on farmers’ land use tied to neonicotinoid-treated seeds. Farmers seek injunctive relief and argue property-right impacts, while the Court of Appeal finds no justiciable issue and treats the regulatory encroachment for environmental protection as legitimate. The ruling addresses the assessment framework for obtaining a pest assessment report, including soil and crop assessments and later training requirements.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Appeal Court denies stay of regulation under Pesticide Act

Amendment

Background

Application judge's dismissal

Issues at stake

SPA assessment

CPA assessment

Superior Court application

# Appeal Court denies stay of regulation underPesticide Act and wheat in Ontario whose producegenerates approximately $2.5 billionin farm gate receipts and whose oper-ations employ some 40,000 people inOntario.(The farm gate value of anagricultural product is the net valueof the product when it leaves thefarm,after marketing costs have beensubtracted.) Marina Sampson and AndyMcDonnell, # CPA assessment The CPA assessment was treated dif-ferently.A CPA could take place fol-lowing March 1,2016,and had to beconducted by a professional pestadvisor. Dentons Canada LLP The Court of Appeal forOntario has effectivelydetermined that the # Superior Court application encroachment of a regulationon the use of land islegitimate for environmentalprotection purposes. The GFO brought an application inthe Superior Court under Rule The GFO members relied uponseeds treated with neonicotinoids,akind of pesticide which protects theircrops from harmful pests.Neonicoti-noids do,however,have a harmfuland toxic effect on bees and otherhelpful insects which provide essen-tial pollination. 14.05(3)(d)(the “Rule”)for a decla-ration interpreting the Regulation,and a motion to stay all sections ofthe Regulation.The GFO took theposition on the application that theamendments were unworkable,would produce little benefit,andwould cause irreparable harm to theOntario corn and grain farmers. In the recent decision of GrainFarmers of Ontario v.Ontario (Min-istry of the Environment and ClimateChange)the Court of Appeal forOntario(the “ONCA”)dismissed theGFO's appeal to stay Ontario Regu-lation 139/015(the“Regulation”)made under the Pesticides Act(the"Act"”). # Amendment Under the Act,the province of Ontarioregulates the classification,use,trans-portation and disposal of pesticides.The province amended the Regulationto control the sale and use of neonic-otinoid treated seeds.The amendmentincluded a grace period of one year. The GFO argued that the propertyrights of farmers were at stake:absentgovernment limitation,owners offland may do with that land as theysee fit,within their rights.The GFOmaintained that an interpretation ofthese rights was within the court'sjurisdiction.The GFO did not arguethat the Regulation was ultra vires ora violation of the Charter of Rightsand Freedoms. The ONCA found that while theRegulation did impact upon the GFOmembers'use of their lands,it did notrise to the level of a justiciable issue.The ONCA effectively determinedthat the Regulation's encroachmenton the use of the GFO members'lands for the purpose of protectingthe environment was legitimate. In the first year of the amendmentscoming into effect,a farmer whowished to plant neonicotinoid seedson more than 50 percent of his/herlands must provide the seed vendorswith a pest assessment report(“PAR”)prior to purchase.The PARmust show that the farmer's landrequired neonicotinoid treated seeds. The Ministry for Environment andClimate Change (the“Ministry”)brought a cross-motion to dismiss theGFO's application for failing to showa reasonable cause of action. The ONCA quoted the followingpassage from the Superior Courtdecision in this case —which goes tothe heart of this matter —withapproval: # SPA assessment ## Issues at stake Two types of assessment may be con-ducted to obtain a PAR:a soil pestassessment(“SPA”)or a crop pestassessment(“CPA”).During the graceperiod (from August 2015 to August2016)any farmer could actuallyperform the SPA.In the next year,upon expiration of the grace period,only those who had obtained a certifi-cate of completion of training in theassessment process could do so. It is not the job of this court topronounce on the efficacy orwisdom of government policyabsent the aforementioned con-stitutional or jurisdictionalchallenges...Nor is it withinthe power of this court torewrite or"correct"legislationwhich is argued by a party to befaulty or ambiguous. Put succinctly,the three issues to bedetermined on the application and

FAQs

Why did the appeal court deny a stay of the regulation under the Pesticides Act?

The Court of Appeal found the regulatory impact did not rise to a justiciable issue. The regulation’s environmental purpose—limiting land use to protect the environment—was treated as legitimate.

What assessments are required to obtain a pest assessment report (PAR)?

Two types can be conducted: soil pest assessment (SPA) and crop pest assessment (CPA). A grace period allowed broader performance of the SPA, with later training and professional requirements for conducting assessments.

What were the key issues considered on the application and cross motion?

The court considered whether it could grant injunctive relief to stay a statutory regulation, whether such relief should be granted, and whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Sep 2, 2026

Uploaded by Gelato