Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court found PMRA’s glyphosate renewal decision unreasonable because the record did not show meaningful engagement with 61 new scientific studies.
The Federal Court upheld the PMRA’s chlorpyrifos phase-out decision as reasonable, deferred to the agency’s statutory interpretation, and dismissed the judicial review applications.
The Federal Court granted a Rule 317 motion for a further certified tribunal record in a judicial review over PMRA’s renewal of Mad Dog Plus.
The PMRA Decision was unreasonable because it failed to interpret and apply the statutory provisions it was bound to consider (including the meaning of "scientifically founded doubt" and whether expert advice would assist), provided no discernible statutory interpretation or adequate reasons under s.35(5), and therefore must be quashed and remitted for redetermination consistent with guidance provided by the Court.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of PMRA’s refusal to appoint a review panel on glyphosate, finding no scientifically founded doubt in the applicants’ notice of objection.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenging a 24-month transition period in a PMRA re-evaluation decision on thiamethoxam products, finding the interpretation and decision reasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed this judicial review as moot after the impugned conditional-registration regime was repealed and PMRA consultations and proposed decisions had overtaken the dispute.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to admit new evidence on appeal in a judicial review proceeding concerning PMRA pesticide registrations and alternative remedies.
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal from a motion decision refusing to strike judicial review applications about PMRA pesticide registrations and s.12 notices.
Grain Farmers of Ontario v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
The application was properly struck because the Regulation is not ambiguous, GFO did not identify a genuine justiciable dispute about rights dependent on interpretation, and the relief sought would effectively rewrite or delay a valid regulation — a remedy beyond the court's declaratory power.
Source excerpt
Explore more
