[co-author: Samantha Chenatte - Articling Student]
The Federal Court has ordered the review of another Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) decision, spotlighting how the regulatory agency handles new scientific evidence in the renewal process for pesticides in Canada. This decision builds on jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal that challenged the PMRA’s refusal to establish a review panel in the face of a notice of objection regarding the PMRA’s re-evaluation of the pesticide glyphosate (see our blog from February 2022, The Federal Court of Appeal Has Weighed in on Re-Evaluation Decisions Made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which reviews that decision in more detail).
In Friends of the Earth Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., 2025 FC 300, Friends of the Earth Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, Safe Food Matters Inc. and Environmental Defence Canada Inc. (the Applicants) sought judicial review of the PMRA’s decision to renew a glyphosate-based pesticide, claiming that the PMRA relied on dated risk assessments without properly considering new scientific evidence submitted by them. The Court held that the PMRA had not provided a sufficient explanation as to how it considered the new data. The PMRA was directed to review the renewal application again in light of the new studies before it.
Background
The PMRA is responsible for registering, and renewing registrations for, pest control products in Canada. In August 2022, the registrant, Loveland Products Canada Inc. (Loveland), applied to the PMRA to renew its registration of Mad Dog Plus, a glyphosate-based pest control product. Glyphosate is the most heavily used pesticide active ingredient in Canada, with over 169 registered products containing glyphosate, authorized for various agricultural and non-agricultural uses. In October 2022, the Applicants urged the PMRA to suspend all renewals of glyphosate products until it had assessed glyphosate’s risks using updated science: namely, sixty-one new scientific studies that had been provided to the PMRA by the Applicants since 2017 which they stated identified new or increased risks associated with the active ingredient.
In December 2022, the PMRA released its decision to renew the registration for Mad Dog Plus for another five years. Loveland did not provide, and the PMRA did not require, any new data in support of the renewal.
The Court’s Findings
The Applicants sought judicial review of this decision. The main issue for determination was whether the PMRA’s December 2022 decision to renew the registration of Mad Dog Plus was reasonable.
As articulated in the case of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, when conducting a reasonableness review of decisions involving highly scientific and technical subject matters, courts must pay careful attention to the decision-maker’s expertise, which warrants judicial deference in the assessment of facts and in the interpretation of law, particularly when it pertains to the decision-maker’s home statutes. The Court noted that, as Vavilov makes clear, deference is contingent on the decision-maker demonstrating its expertise and is not to be presumed. For a decision without formal written reasons to be found reasonable, the decision-making process, as reflected in the record and the outcome, must allow the reviewing courts to understand why the decision was made.
In undertaking this analysis, the Court’s focus was on the PMRA’s interpretation of the statutory provisions governing renewal, its treatment of the new scientific evidence submitted by the Applicants, and the adequacy of its decision-making process as revealed by the record.
The record showed that the PMRA relied on its 2017 re-evaluation of glyphosate as the primary risk assessment baseline. On receipt of the Applicants’ letter presenting new scientific studies alleging increased toxicity and environmental harm associated with glyphosate-based products, the PMRA conducted an internal review, which resulted in four brief memoranda. Three of these were internal memoranda produced by the Health Evaluation Directorate and Environmental Assessment Directorate, all of which acknowledged an awareness of the new publications and stated, without any elaboration, that the new evidence did “not change the current assessment on file that risks are acceptable when label directions are followed.”
The fourth was a memorandum issued by the Agency’s Incident Reporting Program, which analyzed eighty-four post-2017 incident reports involving glyphosate. This memorandum similarly concluded that “no serious health concerns or increasing health trends” had emerged, reaffirming that the PMRA’s prior baseline findings remained unchanged. This memorandum focused exclusively on incident data and provided no evaluation of the sixty-one scientific studies submitted by the Applicants.
The Court accepted that the PMRA’s interpretation of the renewal process was a reasonable, workable understanding of renewals as a streamlined checkpoint within a larger and layered regulatory system that provides different mechanisms for risk assessment for different situations. It was not a mere “rubber stamping” formality, but a streamlined yet still substantive “pulse check” that uses newly available information to reassess the risk level of registered products up for renewal.
By contrast, the Court held that the PMRA’s handling of the Applicants’ letter of October 27, 2022, particularly the sixty-one attached scientific studies, did not constitute a reasonable exercise of its expertise and discretion under the renewal regime. It noted that, although the renewal process does not require a full re-evaluation each time a pesticide is renewed, the PMRA must still meaningfully consider new scientific evidence when assessing whether a product remains safe.
The Court held that there was no way here for it to determine if the decision made was reasonable as the record offered “virtually no sign of whether the [PMRA] had considered evidence that directly challenged its conclusions”. The Court concluded that the complete absence of any notes, logs, or even a brief summary outlining the PMRA’s thought process regarding the Applicants’ evidence meant that the PMRA’s decision failed on transparency and justifiability grounds and was not reasonable.
The Court did not immediately quash the renewal of Mad Dog Plus, as Mad Dog Plus is but one glyphosate-based product among many similarly renewed by the PMRA. It would be disproportionately onerous to force Loveland, and all parties in its distribution chain, to endure an abrupt invalidation of the renewal, pending reconsideration. Instead, it gave the PMRA six months to reconsider the decision and provide a clear explanation of how it assessed the new studies. If the PMRA does not do so within this timeframe, the renewal will be quashed.
Implications
While affirming the PMRA’s authority to streamline renewals, the Court in Friends of the Earth makes it clear that the PMRA cannot sidestep its duty to meaningfully engage with new evidence. Future decisions will need to clearly demonstrate such substantive engagement.
The renewal of Mad Dog Plus, and glyphosate products more generally, is uncertain pending the PMRA’s reconsideration (and explanation) of the evidence before it.
