• Lindy LeBlanc v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Weyerhaeuser Company Limited and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited doing business as Northwest Hardwoods Delta, Permit Holders


    Decision Date: May 29, 2002

    Panel: Alan Andison, Jo Dunaway, Fred Henton

    Keywords: Pesticide Control Act – ss. 6(3), 12(2)(a); Pesticide Control Act Regulation s. 2(1)(a); pesticide use permit; glyphosate; triclopyr

    Ms. Matz appealed the decisions of the Deputy Administrator to issue four pesticide use permits authorizing the use of the pesticides Vision and Release on a number of cutblocks. Two permits were issued to Weyerhaeuser, and two were issued to Weyerhaeuser doing business as Northwest Hardwoods Delta. Ms. Matz requested that the Board reverse the decisions of the Deputy Administrator, or, alternatively, send the matter back with directions to amend the permits. Ms. LeBlanc also appealed one permit, but did not appear at the appeal hearing, and did not submit a Statement of Points before the hearing. The Board, accordingly, did not consider her appeal further.

    The Board found that some of the concerns raised by Ms. Matz were not relevant to the decisions under appeal, or were otherwise outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board did not consider those matters further.

    The Board found that Weyerhaeuser did not breach the Act, the Regulation, or the permits by applying pesticides before the 30-day appeal period expired. The Board also found that the pesticide treatments that occurred in 2001 did not render the appeal moot, because the permits did not expire until the end of 2003 and not all areas were treated in 2001.

    The Board found that the permits contained conditions that were consistent with pesticide label restrictions. The Board found that Ms. Matz provided no site-specific evidence to establish that the permitted pesticide use would have an adverse effect on wildlife or humans. Furthermore, the Board noted that the permits contained conditions to prevent pesticides from entering water bodies, ensure that only vegetation that directly competes with conifer seedlings would be treated, and allow people to avoid areas where pesticides are used. The Board found that there was no evidence that Weyerhaeuser would be unable to apply the pesticides in accordance with their labels or the conditions of the permits. The Board concluded that Ms. Matz failed to establish that the use of pesticides in accordance with the permits would cause an adverse
    effect on the environment or humans. Therefore, the Board found no need to undertake a risk benefit analysis to ascertain whether any adverse effects would be unreasonable.

    The Board confirmed the decisions of the Deputy Administrator. The appeals were dismissed.