Justice Angela Furlanetto ruled that Ottawa’s attempt to label plastic manufactured items as toxic was too broad under federal law.
The Federal Court has rejected a cabinet order that classified plastic manufactured items (PMI) as toxic. The judge described the order as “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”
On Nov. 16, Justice Angela Furlanetto ruled that the categorization of PMI is too broad for a blanket toxicity label under federal law. “There is no reasonable apprehension that all listed PMI are harmful,” she wrote.
The case was initiated by the Responsible Plastics Use Coalition, a non-profit corporation representing companies in the plastic industry operating in Canada. Companies such as Dow Chemical, Imperial Oil, and Nova Chemicals, among others, contended that Ottawa did not adequately demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to justify the proposed regulations.
The federal cabinet is seeking to label “plastic manufactured items” as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In an
Aug. 1 statement, Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault declared a commitment to “zero plastic waste” to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The measure seeks to compel grocery retailers to reduce food plastic packaging.
This follows the government’s
ban on manufacturing and importing single-use plastics
in late 2022, as part of its goal to attain zero plastic waste by 2030. The ban encompasses checkout bags, cutlery, food service ware, ring carriers, stir sticks, and straws.
In response to Ms. Furlanetto’s ruling, Mr. Guilbeault issued
a statement on the social media platform, X, saying that the federal government is reviewing the Federal Court’s decision and is “strongly considering an appeal.”
Waste management regulation typically falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government can only regulate substances for environmental protection if they are classified as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Ms. Furlanetto highlighted in her ruling that the “broad and all-encompassing nature” of Ottawa’s PMI category “poses a threat to the balance of federalism” as it did not limit regulations to plastics with the “potential to cause harm to the environment.”
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith similarly expressed this perspective. In
a statement post on X, she characterized Ottawa’s initial decision to include plastics on the toxic substance list as part of a broader pattern of “federal overreach.” She pointed to the Liberal government’s efforts to restrict energy projects through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, formerly known as
Bill C-69. In October, Canada’s Supreme Court
ruled this environmental assessment scheme as “largely unconstitutional.”
“It’s time for the federal government to listen to the courts and to Canadians,” Ms. Smith wrote. She also urged the government to refrain from appealling this decision, and to immediately delete “plastic manufactured items” from the toxic substance list.
Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz shared Ms. Smith’s statement on social media.
“Labelling perfectly safe consumer plastics as ’toxic' put thousands of jobs and billions of investment dollars at risk,” she wrote on X.
The case specifically addressed an order-in-council that initially included plastic manufactured items on the toxic substance list. These items became legally classified as toxic after
Bill S-5, introduced by Sen. Marc Gold, received royal assent in June. While Ottawa argued that the judge’s ruling wouldn’t impact the single-use plastics ban due to the passage of Bill S-5, Ms. Furlanetto quashed the original order-in-council without ruling on the constitutional validity of S-5.
The Canadian Press contributed to this report.
