By Paul Moloney, Toronto Star

Environmentalists are hailing a Supreme Court decision that upholds Toronto's ban on pesticides.

"It's an enormous victory," Gideon Forman, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said yesterday. "We hope other cities take strength from it and pass their own bylaws."

The decision means the pesticide industry has exhausted all legal avenues in its attempts to strike down the city's bylaw, which restricts the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens. It also means that starting Sept. 1, 2007, Toronto homeowners who break the bylaw will face fines.

The pesticide industry, represented by CropLife Canada and the Urban Pest Management Council, had asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the bylaw, which restricts the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens. The industry had unsuccessfully challenged the bylaw at Ontario's Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Yesterday the top court refused to hear their appeal.

The bylaw — passed by Toronto council in 2003 — essentially banned the use of pesticides with few exceptions. The pesticide industry challenged it arguing it duplicates existing federal and provincial laws on pesticide use, which are also designed to protect health and safety.

Yesterday, Debra Conlon of Urban Pest Management Council said she was disappointed with the decision.

"To have city councils across Ontario passing bylaws to regulate the same thing that the province and the feds already regulate is a complete waste of taxpayers' money," said Conlon, executive director of the council.

"The thing is the city of Toronto or any other municipality doesn't have the expertise. Health Canada on the other hand has tonnes of PhDs working regularly on pesticides."

Conlon added it was ironic that Toronto uses pesticides for mosquito control, citing Health Canada's approval, while ignoring Health Canada's okay on pesticides to control dandelions.

"It puts the city and the board of health in a position where you're going to rely on Health Canada on one hand but undermine them on another," she said.

Forman, whose group participated as one of six intervenors in the appeal court case, accused the industry of using the courts to discourage other municipalities from passing bylaws.

"A lot of municipal councillors were a little bit nervous, on the fence, saying we can't pass our own bylaw until (the Toronto case) is decided," Forman said. "That was the industry's tactic."

This was denied by Conlon, who said the main argument was that pesticide use is already regulated.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said some 70 communities across Canada have similar laws in place but municipalities often face tough battles getting them passed — the city of Ottawa failed just last month to bring in a pesticide ban.

Justin Duncan of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund said he thinks other jurisdictions will now follow Toronto's lead.

"I think a lot of municipalities were just waiting to see what happened with this case — I think we'll be seeing a flood of these type of bylaws now that it's clear that municipalities have jurisdiction to enact them," Duncan said.

Councillor Joe Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul's) argued that yesterday's decision shows that the city was on solid legal footing.

The bylaw restricts, as of April 1, 2004, the outdoor use of pesticides — insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. As of Sept. 1 this year, commercial applicators could face a $225 ticket for non-compliance.