Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The core issue was whether Tide detergent, used to remove moss, qualifies as a “pesticide” under the Integrated Pest Management Act (IPMA).

• The Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) had reversed an administrative penalty, finding that the detergent was not a regulated pesticide.

• The petitioner argued that actual use to control pests is enough to trigger regulation, regardless of the product’s original purpose.

• The court found the EAB’s interpretation unreasonably narrow and inconsistent with the plain statutory language.

• There was further error in the EAB’s assumption that “Excluded Pesticides” are completely outside IPMA compliance requirements.

• The judicial review resulted in the EAB’s decision being quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case arose from MKY Holdings' application of approximately 290 kilograms of Tide detergent to the roofs of 98 condominium units in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The detergent was used to remove moss, and the provincial administrator issued an administrative monetary penalty on the grounds that the detergent was used as an unregistered pesticide, in contravention of section 3(2)(b) of the IPMA. MKY Holdings appealed the penalty to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), which reversed the penalty, holding that the detergent was not a pesticide as defined by the relevant legislation.

The administrator sought judicial review of the EAB’s decision. MKY Holdings did not participate in the judicial review proceedings, leaving the EAB to make submissions in defense of its decision. The case was heard in Victoria, B.C. on April 22 and 23, 2025, and judgment was issued on June 11, 2025.

Key legal issue

The legal dispute centered on the definition of "pesticide" under the IPMA and whether actual use of a substance to control a pest, regardless of its intended or marketed purpose, brings it within the regulatory scope. The administrator argued that the use of Tide detergent to remove moss meets the statutory definition of a pesticide, since moss is classified as a pest under the Act.

The EAB, in its original ruling, interpreted the IPMA more narrowly, holding that the detergent’s lack of inherent risk and its primary use as a household cleaner excluded it from the regulatory regime. It also reasoned that substances listed in Schedule 2 as “Excluded Pesticides,” such as some of Tide’s components, were entirely exempt from IPMA requirements.

Court’s analysis and decision

Justice Loo of the British Columbia Supreme Court found the EAB’s reasoning flawed and unreasonable under the administrative law standard of review outlined in Vavilov. The Court held that the IPMA’s definition of pesticide clearly includes substances that are “used” to control pests and that there is no statutory basis for requiring general or intended use as a pesticide.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the EAB’s interpretation that “Excluded Pesticides” are categorically outside the IPMA’s scope. Instead, it found that while such substances may be exempt from licensing or permit requirements, they are not exempt from all compliance obligations, particularly section 3(2)(b), which governs the use of unregistered pesticides.

As a result, the Court quashed the EAB’s decision and remitted the matter back to the Board for reconsideration. No costs were awarded, as neither party sought them.