Digests

Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Health)

T-1051-01

2004 FC 236, Lemieux J.

16/2/04

40 pp.

Scope of exemption power under Tobacco Reporting Regulations, s. 14(11)--Judicial review of denial under s. 14(15) of request under s. 14(11) for partial exemption from requirement to test, report concentrations of prescribed emissions in mainstream, sidestream tobacco smoke from cigarette tobacco--Whether s. 14(11) permitting grant of partial exemption from reporting requirements when functional linear relationship established between tar and nicotine and one or more of emissions, but not all of them, or whether that exemption must be denied totally if, in respect of some emissions, that functional relationship not established-- Respondent submitting exemption only granted if functional relationship established between tar and every or all emissions listed for mainstream and sidestream smoke and where functional relationship exists between nicotine and every emission listed in the Schedules--S. 14 requiring every manufacturer of designated tobacco product to report annually prescribed information by brand, type of designated tobacco product on concentrations of (prescribed) emissions contained in mainstream, sidestream smoke produced from combustion of designated tobacco product--"Emission" defined term-- Schedule 2 listing 42 chemical emissions for mainstream smoke--Schedule 3 listing 41 chemical emissions for sidestream smoke--Exemption conditional on providing content, results of statistical analysis demonstrating existence of functional linear relationship between (a) tar and each of other emissions other than nicotine and (b) nicotine and other emissions--History, purpose of exemption provision set out--Application of principles of statutory interpretation notwithstanding that applications for exemption out of time and s. 14(13) clearly stating that to qualify for exemption under s. 14(11), sample ("benchmark") must be composed of at least 28 different brands and two standard samples of type of designated tobacco product--Impugned decision made on behalf of Minister pursuant to s. 14(15)--Applications may be rejected on basis of non-compliance with s. 14(15)(b) which specifically refers to sample being in accordance with s. 14(13), (14)--Applicants seeking declaration entitled to partial exemption in future--Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, principles of statutory construction reviewed--Presumption of coherence (provisions of legislation meant to work together as parts of functioning whole) applied--Presumption against tautology (legislature avoids superfluous or meaningless words) applied--Also, words in text cannot be deleted, words not in text cannot be added, and generally court cannot fill legislative gap-- Interpretation must be plausible, one that text of legislation is reasonably capable of--Minister's decision must conform to requirements of s. 14(15) which refer generally to s. 14(11) to s. 14(14) which set out conditions of acceptable benchmark-- Exemption provided for in s. 14(11) not exemption for emissions but rather exemption from reporting requirement spelled out in s. 14(1)--Must read words of subsection 14(11) together in immediate context of subsection and in context of s. 14 itself, to determine meaning of "type of [emission] exemption sought" and "each of the other emissions"--Only two types of emissions contemplated in Regulations: mainstream smoke emissions and sidestream smoke emissions --"Type of [emission] exemption sought" as phrased in s. 14(11) is either reporting exemption for prescribed mainstream smoke emissions or reporting exemption for prescribed sidestream emissions--Governor in Council distinguishing between mainstream and sidestream smoke in that Schedule 2 and 3 emissions not completely same, methods of collection different; reporting requirements, while overlapping not identical--S. 14(1) clear that applicant may apply for exemption from reporting requirements to submit report under s. 14(1) in respect of emissions for mainstream or sidestream smoke--Minister may provide reporting exemption for either or both if in respect of either two streams of smoke or both, each and every emission in those streams yields satisfactory functional relationship--Nothing indicating intent to break up universe of all Schedule 2 or 3 emissions for testing and reporting--Confirmed by use of "each of the other emissions", "the other emissions" and "each of the other emissions" and corresponding French words "les autres émissions", "chacune des autres émissions", all conveying same meaning that functional relationship in two streams must be for all emissions in relevant stream, individually and collectively--Exemption provision so interpreted not producing any unreasonable consequences--Remedy with regulation-maker--Application dismissed--Tobacco Reporting Regulations, SOR/2000-273, s. 14.