HEALTH AND WELFARE |
Crompton Co. v. Canada (Minister of Health)
T-585-01
2001 FCT 435, Tremblay-Lamer J.
4/5/01
15 pp.
Motion for interlocutory orders prohibiting respondents from taking actions to limit sale of lindane product for use on canola/rapeseed seed--Applicant produces and sells various products including agricultural insecticides, pesticides and fungicides--Applicant registrant of lindane product under Pest Control Products Act--Lindane product registered and approved for use in controlling flea beetles, seed rot, damping off or seedling blight and early-season root rot for canola, rapeseed, mustard, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, rutabagas and brussel sprouts--In 1998, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) gave formal notice to Canada that seeds treated with non-US registered pesticides must themselves be registered in US before lawful sale, distribution, or importation--Lindane for use on canola not registered in US--Consequently, Canadian Canola Growers Association and Canadian Canola Council (both representing end users), Canadian Seed Trade Association (representing people who treat canola with lindane), and registrants of lindane seed treatment products came up with joint proposal for voluntary withdrawal both of sale of lindane-based canola seed treatment products by registrants and of use of such treated seed--Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) agreed to applicant's proposal of voluntary withdrawal including all of its products containing lindane for use on canola/rapeseed allowed to be used up to and including July 1, 2001--Applicant then ceased production of its lindane product as of December 31, 1999--In February 2001, PMRA announced not only would sale of lindane-based products for use on canola be prohibited after July 1, 2001, but also use of lindane-treated canola seed, non-compliance being criminal offence with fines of up to $200,000--As result, applicant left with 110,000 litres of unsold lindane product, which would have to be dealt with as hazardous product and disposed of at substantial cost--Motion dismissed--Application of tripartite test for issuance of interlocutory injunction set out in RJR--MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311--Legal basis for arrangement in question serious issue to be tried--However, applicant has failed to establish irreparable harm; even if decline in previous sales has been caused by actions of respondents, could be adequately compensated for in damages--Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-9 --Pest Control Products Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1253.