Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court issued an important decision on environmental protections. It determined that the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) committed clear errors in its decision to allow the use of Tide laundry detergent as a moss remover. MKY Holdings sprayed 290 kg of Tide across the rooftop of the Sage Strata Complex in Abbotsford, B.C. on April 27, 2021. Our new case focus takes a deep dive into that groundbreaking event.
One resident from the 98-unit condominium complex worked up the chain to file the original complaint with B.C.’s Ministry of Environment. Specifically, they feared that detergent, which can be toxic to aquatic life, would runoff into a nearby creek. Michael Lapham, the administrator of the Integrated Pest Management Act, first levied an $8,900 fine against MKY Holdings. He specifically acted against the company’s… On August 1, 2024, the EAB acted and revoked the penalty. They found that Tide is not a pesticide under British Columbia’s environmental laws.
The EAB’s decision is a victory for common sense, ruling that Tide is more accurately categorized as a laundry detergent, not a pesticide. This ruling was largely the impetus for the precedent-setting and judicially embarrassing mistrial declared by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Wedge. Justice Kevin Loo on behalf of the entire Court thus reversed the EAB’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious on its face. Fifth, he rejected as “unreasonable,” the EAB’s reasoning process, especially how broadly they defined substances under environmental law.
Loo wrote in his ruling that this determination was not merely pro forma or incidental. Rather, it was integral to the EAB’s logic. His conclusions show that the EAB inappropriately and unnecessarily limited the scope of what is considered a pesticide without proper justification.
The judge has not ruled yet on whether Tide should be considered a pesticide. He points out that it really requires a new hearing to fully and fairly consider the case. This troubling episode lays bare familiar issues about environmental health and regulatory practice when it comes to the safety of household products.
The effects of this ruling could be felt throughout the country, influencing how similar cases are addressed in the future. As these discussions proceed, stakeholders from the private, public, and civil sectors will be watching closely with great interest.
