• Interior Pest Control v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:


    Decision Date: November 6, 1998

    Panel: Toby Vigod

    Pesticide Control Act – s. 4(1), 7(1), 12(2), 13; Pesticide Control Act Regulation – s. 10(2), 12; jurisdiction over warning letters; request for probationary period.

    Interior Pest Control (“IPC”) appealed the Deputy Administrator’s decision to suspend its Service Licence and require that certain conditions be met prior to the licence being reinstated. IPC also appealed the placement of an Official Warning Letter on its file. These actions had been taken by the Deputy Administrator when an audit revealed that 144 of IPC’s Operations Records involving the use of pesticides in 1997 were inaccurate and/or incomplete contrary to the Pesticide Control Act and regulations. Amongst other things, IPC argued that the Ministry had accepted incomplete records from IPC in the past and, therefore, lost its right to take enforcement action with respect to incomplete records now.

    The Board found that IPC applied a pesticide contrary to the instructions on the label on at least three occasions since 1997 and failed to record pesticide treatments. It also found that IPC could not exonerate its actions by demonstrating the complicity of others. The Board found that IPC failed to obtain an endorsement of its licence to apply pesticides on public land and failed to accurately report its activities in its Annual Summary of Pesticide Use. The Board found that IPC’s Operations Records were incomplete and, despite past acceptance of incomplete or inaccurate records, the Ministry retained the right to take action against IPC. The Board concluded that IPC had repeatedly violated the legislation and that the suspension was appropriate. It rejected a request by the Deputy Administrator to impose a probationary period or a restriction on IPC’s right to apply for future licenses since the Deputy Administrator has discretion over future renewals.

    Regarding the Warning Letter, the Board found that it did not constitute a “decision” under the Act and, therefore, could not be appealed to the Board. The appeal was dismissed.