Agenda Item No.:__D.2.j.________
Regulation of Pesticides in Municipalities (M. Phair)
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Report Summary
This report responds to an inquiry regarding
the recent Supreme Court decision on the
regulation of pesticides in municipalities and
the City of Edmonton’s (City) operations
that utilize these same products.
Previous Council/Committee Action
At the City Council meeting of July 31, 2001
Councillor M. Phair made the following
inquiry:
“The Canadian Supreme Court recently
gave a ruling regarding the regulation of
pesticides in municipalities.
I would like the following information:
1. What was the Court ruling and how
might it apply to Edmonton? Why is
this ruling considered important for
municipalities?
2. Does the City have an active
Pesticide Advisory Committee?
Have they reviewed this recent
ruling?
3. Provide an annual breakdown for the
past ten years on the amount of
pesticides the City uses, the area
(square kilometre) of City lands that
pesticides are used on, the kinds of
pesticides and what the hoped for
results are. I would also appreciate
the costs of pesticides over that same
period.”
Report
1. The Supreme Court of Canada case,
114957 Canada Ltee (Spraytech, Societe
d’arosage) v. Hudson (Town), affirms
the rights of municipalities to pass and
enforce local bylaws which regulate and
restrict pesticide use (Detailed summary
provided by the Law Branch –
Attachment 1). In Hudson, this bylaw
does not create a blanket prohibition on
pesticide use. It bans the use of
pesticides for aesthetic or cosmetic
purposes.
The Municipal Government Act
provides general welfare provisions
similar to that available in Quebec and as
such, the City of Edmonton could pass a
bylaw regarding regulations and
restrictions of pesticides. Based upon
information provided by the Province of
Alberta’s Pesticide Management
Program, potential involvement in the
regulation of pesticide use may be
appropriate as follows:
 Notification requirements of
pesticide application(s);
 Disclosure requirements regarding
pesticides used; and
 Restrictions which may limit
pesticide use or application
technique.
City operations currently utilize all of the
above practices in its pesticide
applications.
2. The City does not currently have an
active Pesticide Advisory Committee. In
Routing:
Delegation:
Written By:
October 3, 2001
File: 2001CSPS76
City Council
Joyce Tustian, Barry Anderson, Doug Kirchner, Carla Conkin
Lyall Brenneis, Doug Kirchner
Community Services Department
(Page 1 of 3)
D
2
j
Regulation of Pesticides in Municipalities (M. Phair)
1994 Council supported the formation of
the Broadleaf Weed Control Advisory
Committee which undertook a three year
analysis to determine weed control
standards for Edmonton. Its
recommendations, approved by Council
in 1997, formed the basis for the City’s
current program.
Based on those recommendations, the
City offers a number of alternatives to
citizens who prefer not to have
herbicides used on City land adjacent to
their properties or in neighbourhood
parks. Currently there are 32 properties
registered on the herbicide exemption
program and 48 registered on the
medical alert program. Additionally,
there are 13 petitioned sites that receive
no herbicide treatment at the request of
surrounding residents.
pesticides and available alternatives
to pesticide application; and
 Monitoring overall trends in
pesticide usage.
3. Information on the breakdown of
herbicides/pesticides useage is only
available for the past eight years.
Attachments 2,3 and 4 provide an annual
breakdown of pesticides/herbicides used
by Community Services. Turfed areas
include sports fields, parks areas and
roadway buffers. Herbicides are applied
under three categories including
Vegetation, Broadleaf and Noxious
Weed Control. Weed Control
commences once the application
protocols are triggered as provided for
by the recommendations of the
Broadleaf Weed Control Advisory
Committee.
Background Information Attached
The Community Services Department is
continuing to investigate alternatives to
using herbicides/pesticides including the
application of hot water and steam;
propane heated elements and flame and
biological measures (insects).
The City of Edmonton’s Environmental
Strategic Plan approved by Council on
July 20, 1999 identifies strategies and
actions specific to the use of pesticides.
Strategies within the plan include:
 Evaluation and updating pesticide
application standards as required;
 Partnering in education and
awareness initiatives on proper
handling and application of
1. Hudson, Quebec Decision Background
2. Parkland Services Vegetation Control
Program
3. Parkland Services Broadleaf Weed
Control Program
4. Parkland Services Noxious Weed
Control Program
Background Information Available on
Request
1. 114957 Canada v. Hudson (Ville)
(Supreme Court of Canada)
Others Approving this Report
Randy Garvey, General Manager,
Corporate Services
(Page 2 of 3)
Regulation of Pesticides in Municipalities (M. Phair)
Staff Hours to Prepare Report: 60 Hours
Staff Cost: $3,800
Peripheral Cost:
Total Cost of Inquiry Preparation: $3,800
(Page 3 of 3)
Attachment 1
Hudson, Quebec Decision Background

The Law Branch was asked by the Community Services Department to assist in responding to
Councillor Phair's July 31, 2001 request for information regarding a recent ruling of the
Supreme Court of Canada regarding regulation of pesticides in municipalities.

More specifically, the Law Branch was asked to explain the Supreme Court of Canada ruling,
to comment on how this case may apply to the City of Edmonton and to comment on why
this ruling is considered important for municipalities.

The Supreme Court of Canada case, 114957 Canada Ltee. (Spraytech, Societe d'arrosage) v.
Hudson (Town), affirms the rights of municipalities to pass and enforce local bylaws which
regulate and restrict pesticide use.

By way of background, certain landscaping and lawn care companies in the Montreal area
(the "Appellants") made use of pesticides which were approved under federal legislation, the
Pest Control Products Act, and were properly licensed under Quebec's provincial legislation,
the Pesticides Act.

The Town of Hudson passed Bylaw 270 to further regulate and restrict use of pesticides at a
municipal level after residents of Hudson became concerned about the potential detrimental
health effects of pesticide use within the municipality. Bylaw 270 does not create a blanket
prohibition of pesticide use. It bans the use of pesticides for aesthetic or cosmetic purposes
but continues to allow usage for farmers and for certain residential and business purposes
such as usage of pesticides in swimming pools, to purify water, to control or destroy animals
or plants posing a danger for human beings, and to control or destroy insects which constitute
a danger or an inconvenience for human beings. Bylaw 270 was passed pursuant to Section
410 of Quebec's Cities and Towns Act. Section 410 is the general enabling provision that
allows a municipality to pass bylaws that "secure peace, order, good government, health and
general welfare in the territory of the municipality".

The Appellants were charged with having used pesticides in violation of Bylaw 270. In
response, the Appellants made an application for a judgement declaring Bylaw 270
inoperative alleging that Bylaw 270 was discriminatory and in conflict with provincial and
federal legislation. The Appellants took the position that Bylaw 270 was detrimentally
affecting and restricting their business practices which were otherwise valid at a provincial
and federal level. Quebec's Superior Court denied the application. The matter was appealed
and Quebec's Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. A further appeal was
made to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts'
decisions and dismissed the application.
Attachment 1 - Page 1 of 4
Attachment 1
Hudson, Quebec Decision Background

In order to determine if the Bylaw was inoperative, The Supreme Court looked at two main
issues in arriving at its decision:
1.
Did the Town of Hudson have the statutory authority to pass Bylaw 270?
2.
If the Town of Hudson had the statutory authority, was Bylaw 270
rendered inoperative because of a conflict with provincial or federal legislation?

In respect of the first issue, the Supreme Court held that Section 410 of the Cities and Towns
Act is a "general welfare" provision which authorizes municipalities to pass bylaws provided
the true purpose of the bylaw is to protect the health, safety or welfare of municipal residents.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed that Bylaw 270's purpose was to reduce the use of
harmful pesticides in order to promote the health of the residents of the Town of Hudson and
therefore held that Bylaw 270 properly falls within the "health" component of Section 410.
Furthermore, in the Supreme Court's view, the subject matter of Bylaw 270 "targets problems
of use of land and property and addresses neighbourhood concerns that have always been
within the realm of local government activity."

In respect of the second issue, in order for Bylaw 270 to be ultra vires or in contravention of
provincial or federal legislation there must be a clear conflict. The federal legislation, the
Pest Control Products Act, regulates which pesticides can be registered for manufacture or
use and the provincial legislation, the Pesticides Act establishes a permit and licensing system
for vendors and commercial applicators of pesticides. The Supreme Court found no conflict
between Bylaw 270 and the aforementioned federal and provincial legislation. On the
contrary, the Supreme Court found that Bylaw 270 compliments and respects the provincial
and federal legislation and in effect creates a tri-level regulatory regime for the usage of
pesticides. The Supreme Court acknowledged that environmental protection is a "major
challenge of our time" and it requires "action by government at all levels". The Supreme
Court commented further that "it appears to be sound legislative and administrative policy to
grant local governments a residual authority to address emerging or changing issues
concerning the welfare of local community living within their territory."

This case applies to Edmonton and is important to municipalities in general because it
provides compelling authority for the proposition that a municipality may take an active role
in the regulation and restriction of pesticide use provided the applicable provincial enabling
legislation authorizes such bylaws and provided the bylaw does not conflict with provincial
and federal legislation relating to pesticide use. A proactive approach may also reduce the
likelihood of municipal liability arising from unregulated usage at a local level.
Attachment 1 - Page 2 of 4
Attachment 1
Hudson, Quebec Decision Background

The Law Branch has reviewed the Alberta enabling legislation, the Municipal Government
Act, along with applicable provincial legislation that deals with pesticide use. The Municipal
Government Act contains "general welfare" provisions similar to that of the Cities and Towns
Act. In respect of provincial pesticide legislation, there were no apparent restrictions on a
municipality passing a bylaw regarding regulation and restrictions, however, any such bylaw
would have to respect and coincide with existing legislation. The Pest Control Products Act,
as federal legislation, applies equally to Quebec and Alberta and therefore a municipal bylaw
similar to Bylaw 270, if passed, would not conflict with federal legislation for the reasons put
forth by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Based on information provided by the Province of Alberta Pesticide Management Program
there is the potential for municipal involvement in the regulation of pesticide use. For
example certain issues that are not being currently covered at a provincial level which may be
appropriate for municipal regulation are as follows:
1.
Notification of pesticide application
For example, users of pesticides, whether business or individual users, would
have to notify area residents of the time, duration and place of usage.
2.
Requirements for disclosure of information regarding pesticide use
For example, at the time of pesticide usage, the user would have to make
available, upon request by area residents, unbiased information as to the names of
the pesticides being used, confirmation of approval of such use by Health Canada
along with a listing of any precautions.
3.
Restrictions
For example, limit the use of broadcast pesticide applications in favour of spot
application techniques.

The Province of Alberta Pesticide Management Program has suggested that the above form
of regulation, in addition to a public education campaign and working with the provincial and
federal governments to restrict and ban certain pesticides, would be an appropriate role for a
municipality like the City of Edmonton. From a legal perspective, this kind of role would
also assist in reducing the likelihood of the City of Edmonton being held liable and
responsible for environmental damages resulting from pesticide use at a local level.
Attachment 1 - Page 3 of 4
Attachment 1
Hudson, Quebec Decision Background

Based on the Law Branch's review of Alberta legislation and the comments received from the
Pesticide Management Program, there appears to be room for regulation of pesticide use by
the City of Edmonton. As to whether the City of Edmonton could pass a similar bylaw to that
used by the Town of Hudson regarding cosmetic use depends on a number of factors. While
the Alberta legislation does not restrict a municipality from banning cosmetic use of
pesticides the City of Edmonton would likely want to consider the following:
1.
2.
3.
Whether the City of Edmonton has the same concerns as those of the
Town of Hudson;
Whether the same restrictions would be appropriate for the City of
Edmonton; and
Whether the restrictions, if chosen, amount to duplication of existing
provincial regulations.
If the City of Edmonton should choose to pass a bylaw, similar to that of the Town of Hudson
or otherwise, the Law Branch would assist to ensure that any such bylaw is authorized under
the Municipal Government Act and does not conflict with provincial or federal legislation.
Attachment 1 - Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2
Parkland Services Vegetation Control Program
Parkland Services Vegetation Control Program
Total Parkland
Inventory
Herbicide Used
Litres
Herbicide Cost
Hectares Treated
Ha Treated As %
of Inventory
2001
486 L
$21,200
183 HA
3.9%
649 L
$27,142
242 HA
5.53%
909 L
$37,755
310 HA
7.39%
843 L
$34,077
324 HA
7.84%
534 L
$27,262
220 HA
5.415
300 L
$19,589
134 HA
3.47%
446 L
$30,411
204 HA
5.26%
182 L
$23,125
113 HA
2.87%
4,660 HA
2000
4,380 HA
1999
4,194 HA
1998
4,131 HA
1997
4,016 HA
1996
3,866 HA
1995
3,892 HA
1994
3,925 HA
This category includes the following tasks: Chemical Trimming, Hard surface weed control and Shrub
bed weed control. Herbicides used are Treflan Liquid, Expedite Broadleaf-Grass, Roundup, Arsenal,
Hyvar.
Mitigating factors:




Inventory increase from Asset Management /Public Works and the Transportation Department (311.2
Ha) as a part of City 97.
Starting in 1995, increased chemical Trimming activity after plastic tree collars were removed from
the base of tree trunks. These collars were ineffective for protection against mechanical damage
caused by mowers and weed trimmers. By controlling the vegetation growth around the base of a
tree, mechanical removal is no longer required.
Chemical trimming is also more cost effective than Mechanical Trimming. A single application of
Chemical Trimming is equivalent to two or three cycles of Machine Trimming.
Shrub bed Herbiciding increased to compensate for Shrub bed Maintenance cycle reduction.
Attachment 2 - Page 1 of 1
Attachment 3
Parkland Services Broadleaf Weed Control Program
Parkland Services
Broadleaf Weed Control Program
Total Parkland
Inventory
Herbicide Used
Litres
Herbicide Cost
Hectares Treated
Ha Treated As %
of Inventory
2001
1742 L
$24,257
1360 HA
29.20%
2349 L
$31,271
1822 HA
41.6%
3135 L
$39,650
2388 HA
57%
2963 L
$29,225
2358 HA
57%
2073 L
$36,126
1721 HA
42%
2085 L
$31,854
1700 HA
44%
2458 L
$38,290
1997 HA
51%
1759 L
$26,635
1432 HA
37%
4,660 HA
2000
4,380 HA
1999
4,194 HA
1998
4,131 HA
1997
4,016 HA
1996
3,866 HA
1995
3,892 HA
1994
3,925 HA
The Broadleaf Weed Control program involves the application of phenoxy herbicides to control
broadleaf weeds such as dandelion and plantain on maintained turf areas. In 1997 the Broadleaf Weed
Advisory Committee set the Weed Control Standards that are currently used to monitor weed infestation.
Herbicides used are 2-4D, Meecoprop, Dyclear, Par III, Killex 500.
Mitigating factors:



Poor weed growth and weed germination due to severe drought conditions in 2001 resulting in a
reduction of areas treated.
After the Weed Control Standard was established in 1997, a large portion of turf inventory was
below the acceptable standard and required herbicide treatment.
Weather is a determining factor for broadleaf infestation.
Attachment 3 - Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4
Parkland Services Noxious Weed Control Program
Parkland Services
Noxious Weed Control Program
Total Parkland
Inventory
Herbicide Used
Litres
Herbicide Cost
Hectares Treated
Ha Treated As %
of Inventory
2001
136 L
$15,109
391 HA
8.3%
129 L
$20,894
534 HA
12.2%
114 L
$23,857
610 HA
14.6%
44 L
$16,767
418 HA
10.1%
167 L
$17,798
333 HA
8.2%
46 L
$5,196
133 HA
3.4%
23 L
$2,737
38.7 HA
1%
20 L
$631
21 HA
.54%
4,660 HA
2000
4,380 HA
1999
4,194 HA
1998
4,131 HA
1997
4,016 HA
1996
3,866 HA
1995
3,892 HA
1994
3,925 HA
The Noxious Weed Control program involves spot spraying of herbicides to control only noxious
weeds in naturalized parkland. This is in accordance to the Provincial legislation governed by the
“Weed Act”. Herbicides used are Transline, Escort, Turboprop, Garlon.
Mitigating factors:



Recent major roadway expansion areas have created the perfect habitat for invasive noxious
weeds.
In the mid 90’s, Toadflax appeared in some naturalized areas. Due to the lack of an effective
herbicide available for such areas, Toadflax is currently the most abundant noxious weed.
Recently, there has been a stronger focus from the City Bylaw Investigation and the public to
control noxious weeds.
Attachment 4 - Page 1 of 1