[Indexed as: Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change)]

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 - 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 50 per cent of their lands would be required to prepare pest assessment report ("PAR") - GFO's application for stay of all sections of Ontario Regulation was dismissed - Trial judge found court could not grant injunctive relief to stay Regulation - Trial judge found use of farmlands in Ontario had been subject of extensive regulation regarding use of pesticides - Trial judge found regulation sought to be stayed actually provided exemption to ban on neonicotinoid-treated seeds by putting in place transition period in its implementation - Trial judge found 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 - Trial judge found balance of convenience favoured dismissal of motion for stay - Trial judge found loss by fanners was purely speculative - Trial judge found there was public interest aspect to ensuring control of use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds to ensure that pollinators were not at risk - Trial judge found GFO's application disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as 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 - Trial judge found court did not have jurisdiction to effectively grant stay in guise of declaration of Regulation which was otherwise unchallenged - GFO appealed - Appeal dismissed - Although motion judge concluded that Regulation does not affect property rights, he did not conclude that Regulation does not affect farmers' legal rights - Regulation did affect legal rights of fanners, as it narrowed range of legally permitted options - Limitation of right does not, standing alone, create justiciable issue - There was simply no controversy as to farmers' rights or obligations under Regulation that could make matter justiciable - Motion judge was correct to strike application on basis that it presented no genuine issue for determination - Rule 14.05(3)(d) of Rules of Civil Procedure does not provide free-standing jurisdiction where interpretative question is raised - Rule 14.05 of Rules of Civil Procedure does not create jurisdiction but assumes it - Neither wisdom nor efficacy of regulation was justiciable issue.