Decision Date: May 8, 2002

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords:  Pesticide Control Act – ss. 6(3), 12(2); Pesticide Control Regulation – s. 16; pesticide use permit; adequate consultation; Vision; glyphosate; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010

The Appellants appealed the decision of the Deputy Administrator to issue a pesticide use permit to International Forest Products Limited (“Interfor”) to allow the application of Vision (glyphosate) on a number of cutblocks. The Appellants requested that the permit be revoked or substantially amended. The Appellants argued that the Deputy Administrator had insufficient information to assess whether the use of Vision would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, that the use of Vision would cause an unreasonable adverse effect on human health and the environment, and that there was inadequate consultation with First Nations before the permit was issued.

The Board found that the Deputy Administrator had sufficient information about the potential adverse effects of Vision, and sufficient site-specific information about the area to be treated, to determine whether there would be unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

The Board found that an adverse effect on fish may occur if dry S5 and S6 streams directly tributary to a fish bearing stream were not protected by a 10-metre pesticide free zone. The Board ordered that the permit be amended accordingly. The Board found that there was no reasonable alternative vegetation control method available for the treatment area and that, subject to the amendment directed by the Board, the use of Vision in accordance with the Permit would not have an adverse effect on human health or the environment.

The Board was not provided with any legal argument regarding what constitutes adequate consultation, and therefore could make no finding with respect to whether adequate consultation with First Nations had occurred. However, the Board found that the statutory requirement to provide public notice of the permit application had been met, and that the Deputy Administrator had considered information and comments provided by local First Nations before the permit was issued.

The decision of the Deputy Administrator was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed subject to the amendment directed.