Toronto Wins Legal Battle on Controversial Pesticide Law

The City of Toronto has won a big legal victory on its right to restrict the use of pesticides – a court ruling likely to be felt across Canada.

In a unanimous decision released yesterday, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge from Croplife Canada, a trade association that includes pesticide makers, which must also pay $109,000 in court costs to the city.

The ruling is significant for affirming the right of cities to make laws for the "legitimate interests" of residents.

In its appeal, Croplife questioned the city's right to pass the 2004 bylaw that restricts outdoor use of pesticides on public and private property.

Councillor Joe Mihevc, a member of the board of health, rejoiced with environmental activists and members of the city's legal team.

"It's a strong bylaw, and it is not going away," he said.

Katrina Miller, a member of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, says the victory will give comfort to other municipalities.

"More than this being a great decision for Toronto, it is a great decision for other municipalities across Ontario who have been scared off the bylaw route by a threatening industry," she said.

"We're very disappointed" by the ruling, a spokeswoman for Croplife Canada said. Debra Conlon said her organization has not decided whether to appeal the decision.

Proponents and critics of pesticide use agree that the province should pass legislation on what is permitted.

While it is legal to purchase pesticides, the city bylaw aims to wean homeowners, golf courses and commercial property owners off chemical sprays and liquids.

The Toronto bylaw is being phased in slowly, with a $280,000 public-education program to encourage residents and others to use natural methods to rid their lawns of dandelions and grubs.

This spring and summer, bylaw enforcement officers will issue warnings to commercial pesticide applicators and commercial property owners -- with a fine of $255 for each property, effective Sept 1.

The city is giving homeowners more time to try alternatives, with no fines until Sept. 1, 2007.

The appeals court ruling released yesterday has wider significance because it recognizes the right of cities to make laws affecting their citizens.

"It's wonderful news for municipalities," said city lawyer Susan Ungar, who notes the decision is the first since provincial legislation increased municipal powers in 2001.

In their ruling, the judges conclude that "municipal powers, including general welfare powers, are to be interpreted broadly and generously within their context and statutory limits, to achieve the legitimate interests of the municipality and its inhabitants."