...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change)
【24h】

Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change)

机译:安大略省的粮农诉安大略省(环境与气候变化部)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Remedies-Injunctions - Availability of injunctions - Injunctions in specific contexts - Restraint of government acts - Miscellaneous-Applicant GFO represented 28,000 producers of corn, soybean and wheat in Ontario - Province of Ontario regulated classification, use, transportation and disposal of pesticides under Pesticides Act - In July 2015, new conditions were created for sale and control of neonicotinoid-treated seeds - Regulation was passed in response to concerns that neonicotinoid, which was insecticide, had toxic effect on bees and other beneficial insects that provided essential pollination - Fanners wishing to use neonicotinoid-treated seeds on more than SO per cent of their lands would be required to prepare pest assessment report ("PAR") - GFO applied for stay of all sections of Ontario Regulation - Application dismissed - Court could not grant injunctive relief to stay Regulation - Use of farmlands in Ontario had been subject of extensive regulation regarding use of pesticides - Regulation sought to be stayed actually provided exemption to ban on neonicotinoid-treated seeds by putting in place transition period in its implementation - Status quo was not unfettered rights of farmers to do as they pleased with neonicotinoid-treated seeds but prohibited use of pesticide unless accompanied by PAR - Balance of convenience favoured dismissal of motion for stay - Loss by farmers was purely speculative - By contrast, there was public interest aspect to ensuring control of use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds to ensure that pollinators were not at risk - In any event, GFO's application disclosed no reasonable cause of action - It was not asking for determination of rights that depended on interpretation of Regulation but re-writing of Regulation in manner that would permit effects of Regulation to be delayed to its advantage - Court did not have jurisdiction to effectively grant stay in guise of declaration of Regulation which was otherwise unchallenged.
机译:补救措施-禁令-特定情况下的禁令-限制政府行为-杂项申请GFO代表安大略省28,000玉米,大豆和小麦生产商-安大略省根据《农药法》对农药进行分类,使用,运输和处置-2015年7月,为销售和控制用新烟碱处理过的种子创造了新的条件-通过了有关烟碱类杀虫剂对蜜蜂和提供基本授粉的其他有益昆虫有毒作用的担忧的法规获得通过-球迷希望必须在其土地的SO%上使用经过新烟碱处理过的种子来制作有害生物评估报告(“ PAR”)-GFO申请中止了《安大略省法规》的所有部分-申请被驳回-法院无法授予禁制令以保留法规-安大略省对农田的使用一直受到有关农药使用的广泛法规的约束想法-通过在实施过程中设置过渡期,力求保留的法规实际上获得了对新烟碱处理种子的禁令的豁免-农民对新烟碱处理的种子感到满意的同时,现状并不是不受束缚的,但他们禁止使用农药除非有PAR陪同-便利的平衡有利于解散居留权-农民的损失纯粹是投机性的-相比之下,在确保控制使用新烟碱处理过的种子以确保传粉媒介没有危险方面存在公共利益方面-无论如何,GFO的申请均未披露合理的诉因-不是要求确定依赖于对法规的解释的权利,而是以使法规的效力延迟其利益的方式重写法规-法院没有有权有效地以声明宣布为幌子准予中止逗留,否则就不会受到质疑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号