Federal Court of Canada: ‘Product of Israel’ labels on settlement wines “false, deceptive”

, , Comments Off on Federal Court of Canada: ‘Product of Israel’ labels on settlement wines “false, deceptive”

LCBO store in Toronto

On July 29, 2019 the Federal Court of Canada ruled that ‘product of Israel’ labels on wines produced in Israeli settlements is “false, misleading and deceptive.”

Here is the text of the ruling:

Date: 20190729

Docket: T-1620-17

Citation: 2019 FC 1003

Ottawa, Ontario, July 29, 2019

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish

BETWEEN:

DAVID KATTENBURG

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Wines produced by Israeli settlers in the West Bank are sold in Canada labelled as

“Products of Israel”. Dr. David Kattenburg, a wine lover and activist, filed a complaint with the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), asserting that such labels are incorrect as the wines in

question are produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or what Dr. Kattenburg calls “the

Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

[2] The CFIA initially agreed with Dr. Kattenburg’s position. However, it subsequently

reversed its decision, concluding that the wines could be sold as currently labelled.

Page: 2

Dr. Kattenburg appealed this latter decision to the CFIA’s Complaints and Appeals Office

(CAO). His appeal raised concerns with respect to the quality of the service that had been

provided to him in the course of the complaints process, as well as with the application of the

country of origin labelling requirements.

[3] The CAO determined that the service-related component of Dr. Kattenburg’s complaint

was justified, as the CFIA had failed to keep him informed while his complaint was being

processed. Insofar as the substance of Dr. Kattenburg’s complaint was concerned, the CAO

noted that the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, Can TS 1997 No 49, defines Israeli

“territory” as including areas where Israel’s customs laws are applied. As Israel’s customs laws

are applied in the West Bank, the CAO concluded that there was no reason to request that the

CFIA reconsider its decision, affirming that wines produced in the West Bank could be imported

and sold in Canada labelled as “Products of Israel”.

[4] Dr. Kattenburg seeks judicial review of the CAO’s decision, asserting that it erred in

determining that “Product of Israel” labels on wines produced in Israeli settlements in the West

Bank complied with Canadian law.

[5] While there is profound disagreement between those involved in this matter as to the

legal status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, I do not need to resolve that question in this

case. Whatever the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank may be, all of the parties and

interveners agree that the settlements in issue in this case are not part of the State of Israel.

Consequently, labelling the settlement wines as “Products of Israel” is both inaccurate and

misleading, with the result that the CAO’s decision affirming that settlement wines may be so

labelled was unreasonable.

Page: 3

I. The Parties

[6] Dr. Kattenburg describes himself as the Jewish child of Holocaust survivors. In addition

to being an oenophile, he states that he is also a “science educator, a journalist and web

publisher, and a human rights activist”.

[7] Dr. Kattenburg says that he has travelled to the West Bank and has seen first-hand that

Palestinians live under what he describes as “permanent military occupation and apartheid”. He

states that he initiated his CFIA complaint and this Application for Judicial Review “to help

ensure respect for Canada’s consumer protection and product labelling laws, to help ensure that I

and other Canadian wine consumers be provided truthful and accurate information about the

wine products that they purchase and consume, and to ensure both Canada’s and Israel’s respect

for international human rights and humanitarian law”.

[8] Dr. Kattenburg explains that he believes that Canadians “should be able to make

informed choices, based on truthful product labelling, about whether they wish to purchase

settlement wines and other settlement products”. He further submits that “the labeling of

settlement wines on Canadian store shelves as ‘Product of Israel’ facilitates Israel’s de facto

annexation of large portions of the West Bank”, and that this is “an affront to [his] conscience as

a Jewish person and to [his] commitment to the rule of law as a citizen of Canada”.

[9] The CFIA was created by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, S.C. 1997, c. 6 as a

regulatory body responsible for overseeing the safety of Canada’s food supply by enhancing “the

effectiveness and efficiency of federal inspection and related services for food and animal plant

health”. Its mission is to safeguard food, animals and plants, thereby enhancing the health and

well-being of Canadians, as well as the economy and the environment. At the relevant time, the

Page: 4

CFIA was responsible for administering and enforcing some 13 federal statutes and 38 sets of

federal regulations, including the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, the Consumer

Packaging and Labelling Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-38, and the Food and Drug Regulations,

C.R.C., c. 870.

[10] The CAO was created in 2012 as part of the CFIA’s ongoing efforts to enhance

transparency and accountability within its operations. Created by CFIA policy, the CAO serves

as “an impartial single window office within the CFIA to provide stakeholders with a redress

mechanism” that considers and responds to complaints brought by those who have had direct

dealings with the CFIA. The CAO deals with complaints related to the quality of the service

provided by the CFIA, as well as complaints relating to the performance of its regulatory

functions. Insofar as regulatory complaints are concerned, the CAO may affirm the CFIA’s

decision or recommend that it be reconsidered or amended.

II. The Interveners

[11] Two organizations were granted leave to intervene in this application.

[12] Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJVC) is supportive of Dr. Kattenburg’s position. It

describes itself as “a national grassroots organization grounded in Jewish tradition that advocates

for just peace in Israel-Palestine and social justice at home.” The organization describes its work

as seeking “a just peace in Israel-Palestine based on principles of equality and human rights”,

stating that its mission is “to create a public presence for the voices of Canadian Jews in support

of justice in Israel/Palestine and at home”. IJVC asserts that its mission “is intricately grounded

in the right of free expression, in particular to voice principled criticisms of Israeli state policy

and to promote justice and equality for Palestinians and Israelis alike”.

Page: 5

[13] The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada (the League) opposes

Dr. Kattenburg’s application for judicial review. It describes itself as an agency operating within

B’nai Brith Canada. B’nai Brith Canada is a member of B’nai Brith International, which is an

internationally-recognized charitable organization dealing with human rights and issues relating

to Israel.

[14] In the affidavit of the League’s National Director, B’nai Brith Canada is described as a

charitable, membership-based service organization, active in Canada since 1875. B’nai Brith

Canada’s mandate is to expose and combat racism and bigotry, and to preserve and enhance

human rights. The National Director further states that while the parent B’nai Brith organization

deals with international issues, the focus of B’nai Brith Canada, including the League, is on

Canada-specific issues. He further describes B’nai Brith Canada as “one of the pre-eminent

human rights organizations in Canada”.

III. Dr. Kattenburg’s Complaint to the CFIA

[15] Dr. Kattenburg states in his affidavit that he visited the Psâgot winery in June of 2017.

The winery is one of the two wineries that produce the wines in issue in this case. It is located in

the Psâgot settlement, just east of Ramallah in what Dr. Kattenburg refers to as the “Occupied

Palestinian Territories”. While he was there, Dr. Kattenburg confirmed that the wines that were

sold at the Psâgot winery had in fact been produced in the West Bank. Also at issue in this

proceeding are wines produced in the Shiloh settlement, which Dr. Kattenburg notes is also in

the West Bank.

[16] Prior to visiting the West Bank, however, Dr. Kattenburg had sent a letter to the Liquor

Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) on January 6, 2017, stating that two wines sold in Ontario

Page: 6

were falsely labelled as being products of Israel, when they had in fact been produced in Israeli

settlements in the West Bank. The wines in question are Shiloh Legend KP 2012 and Psâgot

Winery M Series, Chardonnay KP 2015 (the Settlement Wines). A copy of Dr. Kattenburg’s

letter was also sent to the CFIA.

[17] Not having received a satisfactory response to his complaint, Dr. Kattenburg complained

directly to the CFIA about the labelling issue on March 31, 2017.

[18] In his complaint to the CFIA, Dr. Kattenburg asserted that the Settlement Wines were

labeled “Made in Israel”, when they had in fact been produced entirely from grapes grown and

processed in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which settlements were not within the State of

Israel. Dr. Kattenburg observed that wines may claim to be wines of a country if they are made

from grapes at least 75% of which are grown in that country, and if they are fermented,

processed, blended and finished in that country, or, in the case of wines blended in the country in

question, at least 75% of the finished wine is fermented and processed in that country from the

juice of grapes grown in that country.

[19] Dr. Kattenburg stated that as that the Settlement Wines were produced from grapes

grown and processed entirely outside of Israel’s sovereign borders, they should not be identified

as having been “Made in the Judean Hills, Israel”, as is the case on the LCBO’s website.

Dr. Kattenburg then suggests how, in his view, the wines should be labelled. His suggestions

included “Made in Ma’ale Levona settlement, Occupied Palestinian Territories” (in the case of

the Shiloh wines), or “Made in Psâgot settlement, Occupied Palestinian Territories” (in the case

of the Psâgot wines). Other possible labels for the Settlement Wines suggested by Dr. Kattenburg

included “Product of the West Bank”, “Product of the Occupied Palestinian Territories”,

Page: 7

“Product of Palestine” or “Product of the Psâgot Settlement” or “Product of the Shiloh

Settlement”, as the case may be.

[20] Dr. Kattenburg further asserted in his complaint that labelling the Settlement Wines as

Israeli in origin “flagrantly violates CFIA regulations, and compromises the trust that Canadian

consumers have in product labelling”. He therefore asks the CFIA to instruct the LCBO to

replace the country of origin labels with “a more truthful” statement that the origin of the

Settlement Wines was the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

IV. The CFIA’s Response

[21] Following receipt of Dr. Kattenburg’s complaint, the CFIA gathered information from

sources within the agency and consulted with Global Affairs Canada (“GAC”). The CFIA

initially concluded that the “Product of Israel” label “would not be acceptable and would be

considered misleading as per subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act”. Subsection 5(1) of the

Food and Drugs Act provides that no one shall “label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise

any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous

impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety”.

[22] In accordance with instructions from the CFIA, on July 11, 2017, the LCBO sent a letter

to its vendors, advising them that it was not appropriate to label the Settlement Wines as

“Products of Israel”. Dr. Kattenburg was not advised of the CFIA’s decision at that time.

[23] Following media inquiries, the CFIA President held two meetings with senior CFIA

management in order to better understand the issue giving rise to the CFIA’s decision. At the

second meeting, held on July 13, 2017, new information provided by GAC was reviewed. This

Page: 8

included provisions of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA), Article 1.4.1(b) of

which defines the “territory” to which the agreement applies as including the territory where

Israeli customs laws apply. As will be discussed further on in these reasons, Israeli customs laws

apply in the West Bank.

[24] On July 12, 2017, Dr. Kattenburg saw a post on the B’nai Brith Canada website stating

that “while advocating on behalf of the grassroots Jewish community, B’nai Brith discovered

that the decision targeting Israeli wines in LCBO stores will soon be reversed”. That same day,

Dr. Kattenburg emailed the CFIA, asking that it stand by its original decision. The following

day, Dr. Kattenburg retained counsel who then wrote to the CFIA, urging that it not reverse its

original decision. Counsel also asked how it was that B’nai Brith Canada was aware of the

CFIA’s intention to reverse its decision when Dr. Kattenburg himself had not been so advised.

[25] The CFIA announced that it was reversing its original decision on July 13, 2017. It

further advised the LCBO that its initial decision had not fully considered the implications of

CIFTA, and posted a statement to this effect on its website. Dr. Kattenburg states that he learned

of the CFIA’s new decision from press reports, and that he had not been informed of the decision

by the CFIA itself.

[26] Dr. Kattenburg emailed the CFIA on July 17, 2017, expressing his strong objection to the

reversal of the CFIA’s earlier decision. He asked to be provided with all of the documents that

were relevant to the matter, including copies of the CFIA’s two decisions. Dr. Kattenburg also

asked that the CFIA provide him with detailed written reasons explaining why it had decided to

reverse its original decision. Dr. Kattenburg received no response to this request.

Page: 9

[27] Approximately one week later, a letter was sent to the CFIA by Dr. Kattenburg’s counsel

advising that Dr. Kattenburg intended to pursue the matter. Counsel also reiterated

Dr. Kattenburg’s request that he be provided with copies of the CFIA’s decisions and reasons for

those decisions, together with an explanation as to how it was that advocacy groups such as

B’nai Brith Canada were aware of the CFIA’s intention to reverse its earlier decision before

Dr. Kattenburg was informed of that decision. Once again, Dr. Kattenburg and his counsel

received no response to this request.

V. Dr. Kattenburg’s Appeal to the CAO

[28] Dr. Kattenburg then filed an appeal of the CFIA’s July 13, 2017 decision with the

Complaints and Appeals Office of the CFIA. His appeal raised concerns regarding the quality of

the service that had been provided to him by the CFIA, and with respect to the regulatory

application of the country of origin labelling legislation.

[29] The CAO contacted the relevant CFIA branches to request material pertinent to

Dr. Kattenburg’s appeal, including information with respect to the CFIA’s consultations with

GAC. After reviewing the relevant documentation, the CAO determined that there was no reason

to ask the CFIA to reconsider its decision. The CAO then circulated a draft letter within the

CFIA setting out its decision and seeking feedback from some of its departments. The CAO also

sought feedback from GAC with respect to its draft decision. GAC proposed that certain changes

relating to CIFTA be made to the letter “for technical accuracy”, which suggestions were

subsequently incorporated into the CAO’s decision.

Page: 10

[30] On September 28, 2017, CAO officials spoke to Dr. Kattenburg and his counsel, advising

them of the results of the review process. The CAO subsequently confirmed its decision in

writing.

[31] The CAO upheld the service-related component of Dr. Kattenburg’s complaint, finding

that the CFIA had failed to provide him with a response to his complaint.

[32] Insofar as the regulatory aspect of his complaint was concerned, however, the CAO noted

that while the CFIA “is the responsible regulatory body to consider food labelling questions”,

questions relating to Canadian foreign policy are “outside its mandate”. The CAO went on to

state that the CFIA “seeks advice when necessary from the competent federal authority”, which,

in this case, it identified as GAC.

[33] The CAO further stated that after the CFIA made its initial decision in relation to

Dr. Kattenburg’s complaint, GAC had drawn the CFIA’s attention to the definition of the term

“territory” in CIFTA, causing the CFIA to reconsider its original decision. The CAO concluded

that there was no reason to request reconsideration of this second decision.

[34] The effect of the CAO’s decision was to affirm that Settlement Wines imported for sale

in Canada may be sold with the “Product of Israel” label to meet Canadian domestic “country of

origin” labelling requirements.

Page: 11

[35] Dissatisfied with this response, Dr. Kattenburg then commenced this application for

judicial review in which he requests orders:

a. declaring unlawful the decision to permit the importation and sale in Canada of

Settlement Wines labelled as “Product of Israel”;

b. declaring that neither CIFTA nor the CIFTA Act authorizes products made in the

Occupied Palestinian Territories to be labelled as “Product of Israel”;

c. declaring that, insofar as Settlement Wines are labelled as “Product of Israel,” the

Settlement Wines violate section 5(1) of the FDA;

d. declaring that, insofar as Settlement Wines are labelled as “Product of Israel”, the

Settlement Wines violate section 7 of the CPLA;

e. declaring that the decision to permit the importation and sale in Canada of

Settlement Wines labelled as “Product of Israel” violates the Geneva Conventions

Act, as well as Canada’s obligations as a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention

and the United Nations Charter; and

f. granting the Applicant his costs of this Application.

VI. Issues

[36] There are two issues that have to be decided in this application. The first is the

appropriate standard of review to be applied to the CAO’s decision. The second is whether the

CAO erred in upholding the CFIA’s original decision.

Page: 12

VII. Standard of Review

[37] Dr. Kattenburg submits that there are no material facts in dispute in this case with respect

to the events that transpired or the fact that the West Bank is not part of the State of Israel. He

contends that this application turns entirely on the CAO’s interpretation of Article 1.4.1(b) of

CIFTA, and whether it permits products produced in the West Bank to be labelled and sold in

Canada as “Products of Israel”. As such, Dr. Kattenburg submits that the appropriate standard of

review is that of correctness.

[38] The respondent contends that the appropriate standard of review is that of reasonableness.

The CAO was applying its own statutory scheme to the facts of this case, with the result that

reasonableness is the presumptive standard of review, and none of the circumstances in which

correctness is the appropriate standard apply in the present case.

[39] None of the parties have identified any decisions of this or any other court addressing the

standard of review to be applied to recommendations made by the CAO. Consequently, it is

necessary to carry out a standard of review analysis in order to identify the appropriate standard

of review: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paras. 57 and 62, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.

[40] The starting point for this analysis is the rebuttable presumption that reasonableness will

be the applicable standard of review.

[41] That is, the Supreme Court has stated that where an administrative body is interpreting

and applying its own statutory scheme – in this case, the Food and Drugs Act, the Consumer

Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drug Regulations – there is a rebuttable

presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review: see, for example, McLean

Page: 13

v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67 at paras. 21 and 22, [2013] 3 S.C.R.

895; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011

SCC 61 at para. 39, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 at para. 27, [2018] S.C.J. No. 31.

[42] There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The correctness standard of review will apply

with respect to (1) issues relating to the constitutional division of powers; (2) true questions of

vires; (3) issues of competing jurisdiction between tribunals; and (4) questions of central

importance to the legal system that are outside the expertise of the decision-maker.

[43] Exceptionally, the presumption may also be rebutted where a contextual inquiry shows a

clear legislative intent that the correctness standard be applied: Dunsmuir, above at paras. 55, 58-

9 and 60-61.

[44] There is no suggestion that this case involves questions relating to the constitutional

division of powers or true questions of vires. Nor is there any suggestion that the case involves

issues of competing jurisdiction between tribunals.

[45] However, Dr. Kattenburg contends that the presumption that the standard of

reasonableness applies is rebutted in this case because what is at issue is a question that is of

central importance to the legal system that is outside the expertise of the decision-maker. He

submits that the issue here is not the interpretation of the Food and Drugs Act, the Consumer

Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drug Regulations – matters with which the

CFIA has expertise – but rather the interpretation of CIFTA – something that is outside the

Page: 14

expertise of both the CFIA and the CAO. Consequently, Dr. Kattenburg contends that the

correctness standard should apply in this case: Dunsmuir, above at para. 55.

[46] The Supreme Court has held that questions of law that are of “‘central importance to the

legal system … and outside the … specialized area of expertise’ of the administrative decision

maker will always attract a correctness standard”: Dunsmuir, above at para. 55, citing Toronto

(City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para. 62, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77.

[47] The Supreme Court has, however, repeatedly stated that a liberal application of the

“questions of central importance” category of exceptions is to be avoided: Canada (Canadian

Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 at para. 42, [2018]

S.C.J. No. 31, citing Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. v. Manitoba Association of Health

Care Professionals, 2011 SCC 59 at para. 38, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; Saskatchewan (Human

Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 at para. 168, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; Kanthasamy v.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para. 44, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909;

Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, 2016 SCC 8

at para. 34, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 29; Alberta Teachers¸ above at para. 32; Barreau du Québec v.

Quebec (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 56 at para. 18, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 488; Canadian National

Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40 at paras. 60 and 62, [2014] 2 S.C.R.

135; McLean, above at para. 28. The Supreme Court has further stated that a question of law

that does not rise to this level may be compatible with a reasonableness standard where other

factors so indicate.

[48] What is at issue in this case is not a pure question of law, but rather a question of mixed

fact and law, involving the application of Canadian product labelling legislation to the facts of

Page: 15

this case. This involves the application of the CFIA’s regulatory scheme, supporting a finding

that reasonableness is the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the CAO’s decision.

Consideration of the elements of the standard of review analysis leads to a similar conclusion.

[49] One of the elements to be considered in a standard of review analysis is whether there is a

privative clause in the enabling legislation. Privative clauses constitute statutory directions from

Parliament indicating the need for deference. Given that the CAO is entirely a creature of CFIA

policy, it follows that there is no statutory privative clause regarding its recommendations, and

thus no statutory direction from Parliament indicating the need for deference to CAO

recommendations.

[50] The second consideration in the standard of review analysis is whether there is a discrete

and special administrative regime in which the decision maker has special expertise. The

Supreme Court cites labour relations as an example of this. The CFIA (and thus the CAO) have

expertise in product labelling, which would suggest the need for deference to its decisions on

these issues.

[51] That said, the CFIA has itself acknowledged that it does not have expertise in deciding

what constitutes a “country” for the purpose of identifying a product’s country of origin in

accordance with product labelling legislation. Indeed, guidelines promulgated by the CFIA state

that “it is not the role of the CFIA to decide what a ‘country’ is or is not”. The guidelines explain

that the CFIA “aligns its assessment of country of origin claims with Global Affairs Canada’s

position in assessing country of origin declaration[s]”.

Page: 16

[52] The CAO further advised Dr. Kattenburg that it had not engaged in a fresh analysis of

Article 1.4.1(b) of CIFTA, suggesting that it too had deferred to Global Affairs Canada’s position

on this issue. Indeed, the respondent acknowledges that the CAO did not conduct a substantive

review of the issue, deferring instead to GAC’s advice on this matter, given its expertise in

matters relating to CIFTA.

[53] Global Affairs Canada clearly has expertise in matters of international geopolitics, once

again suggesting the need for deference in this case.

[54] Consideration of all the relevant factors thus leads to the conclusion that the

reasonableness standard should be applied in reviewing the CAO’s recommendations. The Court

must thus consider “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the

decision-making process”, and “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable

outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”: Dunsmuir, above at para. 47;

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),

2011 SCC 62 at para. 14, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708.

VIII. The Legislative Regime

[55] Before considering whether the CAO’s decision was reasonable, however, it is first

necessary to have regard to the statutory regime governing the issue of product labelling in

Canada. I will briefly summarize the relevant statutory provisions, the full text of which is set out

as an appendix to these reasons.

[56] Subsection 7(1) of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act provides that “[n]o dealer

shall apply to any prepackaged product or sell, import into Canada or advertise any prepackaged

Page: 17

product that has applied to it a label containing any false or misleading representation that relates

to or may reasonably be regarded as relating to that product”. Subsection 2(1) of the Act defines

“dealer” as being persons who are “retailer[s], manufacturer[s], processor[s] or producer[s] of a

product, or a person who is engaged in the business of importing, packing or selling any

product”.

[57] The legislation goes on to define what will constitute a “false or misleading

representation”, with paragraph 7(2)(c) of the Act stating that such representations include “any

description or illustration of the … origin … of a prepackaged product that may reasonably be

regarded as likely to deceive a consumer with respect to the matter so described or illustrated”.

[58] Subsection 3(1) of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act further provides that

(subject to certain exceptions that do not apply here) “the provisions of this Act that are

applicable to any product apply despite any other Act of Parliament”.

[59] As noted earlier, subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act provides that “[n]o person

shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading

or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value,

quantity, composition, merit or safety”.

[60] Section B.02.108 of the Food and Drug Regulations further requires that there be “a clear

indication of the country of origin” shown on the principal display panel of wines sold in

Canada.

[61] With this understanding of the legislative regime, I turn now to consider whether the

CAO’s decision was reasonable.

Page: 18

IX. Was the CAO’s Decision Reasonable?

[62] Dr. Kattenburg submits that the “core question” in this application is whether Article

1.4.1(b) of CIFTA authorizes the producers of goods in Israeli settlements in the West Bank to

label the products that they sell as “Products of Israel”, even though the products in question

were not in fact produced in the State of Israel.

[63] In contrast, the respondent says that what is at the heart of this dispute is the mandatory

requirement in Section B.02.108 of the Food and Drug Regulations that there be a clear

indication of the country of origin shown on the principal display panel of wines sold in Canada.

[64] The respondent does not suggest that “Product of Israel” is the only language that could

reasonably be used on the labels of Settlement Wines, accepting that such wines could, for

example, also appropriately state that they were “Products of Israel (West Bank)”. The

respondent submits, however, that in the absence of the West Bank being part of a recognized

country, labelling Settlement Wines as “Products of Israel” is within the range of possible,

acceptable outcomes that are defensible in light of the requirements of the relevant legislation

and the facts of this case.

[65] The respondent does not claim that CIFTA is determinative of this matter, or that it

actually has anything to do with product labelling in Canada. However, where the territory in

which wine is produced does not constitute a “country”, as is the case here, the respondent says

that it is reasonable to have regard to other appropriate indicia, including international

instruments such as CIFTA and related documents, in order to determine how to meet Canada’s

country of origin labelling requirements.

Page: 19

[66] Before addressing the merits of the applicant’s arguments, there are three matters that

should be addressed.

[67] The first relates to the alleged involvement of B’nai Brith in having the CFIA’s initial

decision rescinded. The second relates to the parties’ arguments with respect to the status of the

Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The third relates to the admissibility of the various emails

that are appended to Dr. Kattenburg’s second affidavit.

[68] Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the applicant has raised concerns with respect to

the fact that, unbeknownst to him, B’nai Brith had allegedly lobbied the CFIA to have it reverse

its initial decision prohibiting the labelling of Settlement Wines as “Products of Israel”.

Dr. Kattenburg raised this as a concern in his appeal to the CAO, asserting that he had been

denied procedural fairness in the CFIA process, as he was not informed of the submissions that

were made by B’nai Brith and he was not afforded the opportunity to respond to them. It will be

recalled that the CAO upheld Dr. Kattenburg’s appeal to the extent that it raised issues with

respect to the quality of the service that had been provided to him.

[69] Although Dr. Kattenburg discussed B’nai Brith’s actions in his submission to this Court,

he has not suggested that he was denied procedural fairness in the CAO process, or that its

recommendations should be set aside because of B’nai Brith’s actions. Consequently, it is not

necessary to address this issue in this decision.

[70] With respect to the second issue, the parties and the interveners provided the Court with

extensive international law arguments with respect to the legal status of Israeli settlements in the

West Bank. Dr. Kattenburg also provided expert evidence addressing this question. While I have

Page: 20

carefully considered this evidence and these arguments, I have determined that it is not necessary

to decide this issue. Both parties and both interveners agree that, whatever the legal status of the

settlements may be, the fact is that they are not within the territorial boundaries of the State of

Israel.

[71] Insofar as the third issue is concerned, after he had filed his record in this matter,

Dr. Kattenburg received a number of documents from the CFIA in response to a request he had

made under the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1. Included in these documents

were a series of emails from within the CFIA, as well as emails between representatives of the

CFIA and GAC.

[72] Pursuant to an Order of Prothonotary Aalto, Dr. Kattenburg was granted leave to file a

further affidavit including these emails as part of the record. Leave was granted without

prejudice to the right of the respondent to argue that the documents are irrelevant to the issues in

this case and should not be considered by this Court.

[73] There is no suggestion that any of these emails were before the CAO when it dealt with

Dr. Kattenburg’s appeal. He has also failed to establish that the emails in question come within

any of the recognized exceptions to the principle that applications for judicial review ordinarily

proceed on the basis of the record that was before the original decision-maker: Ontario Assn. of

Architects v. Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, 2002 FCA 218 at para. 30, [2003]

1 F.C. 331. As a consequence, I decline to have regard to the contents of the emails in question.

Page: 21

[74] The question, then, is whether the CAO’s recommendation that Settlement Wines

continue to be labelled as “Products of Israel” was reasonable, in light of the fact that the

settlements where the wines were produced are not within the territory of the State of Israel.

[75] Given that the Food and Drug Regulations require that there be “a clear indication of the

country of origin” shown on the principal display panel of wines sold in Canada, and given that

the Government of Canada has not recognized Palestine as a country, the respondent says that

Israel was the only country that could be identified on labels as the source of the Settlement

Wines.

[76] The respondent further contends that international instruments involving Canada, Israel

and the Palestinian Authority are a reasonable source of indicia to be considered by the CFIA in

determining how best to comply with the “country of origin” labelling requirements. The

respondent identifies three such instruments as being relevant to this case.

[77] The first such instrument is CIFTA, which has been implemented into Canadian law by

the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 33. CIFTA creates

preferential tariffs for goods traded between Canada and Israel, and extends this preferential

tariff treatment to “another beneficiary” to which Israeli customs laws apply.

[78] Subsection 50(1) of the Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36 further provides that goods

originating from Israel or another CIFTA beneficiary are entitled to the benefit of Canada–Israel

Agreement Tariff customs duty rates. Regulations that Canada has promulgated as part of its

implementation of CIFTA define “Israel or another beneficiary” as meaning “the territory where

the customs laws of Israel are applied”.

Page: 22

[79] The Customs Tariff definition further states that this includes “the territory where those

laws are applied in accordance with Article III of the Protocol on Economic Relations set out in

Annex V of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,

dated September 28, 1995, as that Protocol is amended from time to time”: Regulations Defining

Certain Expressions for the Purposes of the Customs Tariff, SOR/97-62, 30 December 1996,

section 1. As previously noted, Article 1.4.1(b) of CIFTA also defines “territory” for the

purposes of the agreement as being “the territory where [Israel’s] customs laws are applied”.

[80] The Protocol referred to in the previous paragraph is the second instrument cited by the

respondent. It specifically provides that Israeli customs laws apply to the West Bank and the

Gaza Strip: Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Annex

V, Protocol on Economic Relations, Article III:

https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/THE%20ISRAELIPALESTINIAN%20INTERIM%20AGREEMENT%20-%20Annex%20V.aspx.

[81] The third instrument relied on by the respondent is the 1999 agreement between Canada

and the Palestine Liberation Organization (acting on behalf of the Palestinian Authority). In this

agreement the parties acknowledged the application of these provisions: Joint CanadianPalestinian Framework for Economic Cooperation and Trade between Canada and the Palestine

Liberation Organization on Behalf of the Palestinian Authority (“the Joint Canadian-Palestinian

Framework”).

[82] The Joint Canadian-Palestinian Framework is not legally binding. However, it

acknowledges the existence of the 1994 Protocol on Economic Relations between the

Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in its Preamble. The

Page: 23

Protocol declares that the “Palestinian Authority has powers and responsibilities in import and

customs policy and procedures” with respect to specified categories of goods, and that, for other

categories of goods, Israel’s customs rates will serve as the minimum basis for the Palestinian

Authority.

[83] The respondent contends that, in the absence of a recognized country denomination for

the territory in which the Settlement Wines are produced, and given the customs arrangement

entered into by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it was reasonable for the CFIA and the CAO

to conclude that wines produced in the West Bank could be labelled as “Products of Israel” for

the purpose of Canada’s labelling laws.

[84] The respondent further contends that there is nothing in the legislative history of the Food

and Drugs Act and Regulations or the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act that indicates that

Parliamentarians were concerned that product labelling should inform Canadians about issues of

public international law in their selection and purchase of food products.

[85] According to the respondent, this legislative history discloses that the focus of the

legislation at issue in this case was instead on health and safety concerns. Parliamentarians were

concerned about prohibiting false, misleading or deceptive labels, wanting to ensure that

Canadian consumers would have accurate information with respect to the contents, qualities and

characteristics of food products. This was meant to protect consumers from injurious food or

fraud by helping them make knowledgeable decisions in the marketplace. Also of concern was

how the wording on product labels would be understood by the “average reasonable consumer”.

Page: 24

[86] Seen in this light, the respondent submits that there is nothing false, misleading or

deceptive about the labels at issue in this case, in view of the purpose of the Food and Drugs Act

and Regulations and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the information that the

average reasonable consumer is entitled to expect.

[87] Noting that there is nothing in the legislation that refers to matters of international law,

the respondent also submits that the wording of labels on products sold in Canada cannot address

every issue of concern. Product labels are, moreover, not intended to provide Canadian

consumers with information with respect to sensitive geopolitical issues. According to the

respondent, if consumers had concerns with respect to where the Settlement Wines were

produced, “they can just Google the name of the wineries”.

[88] The respondent notes that the United Kingdom Supreme Court had to deal with a similar

issue in a case involving comparable British labelling legislation: Richardson and another v.

Director of Public Prosecutions, [2014] UKSC 8, [2014] All ER 20. In Richardson, the

defendants objected to a shop in London selling beauty products manufactured in an Israeli

settlement that were derived from mineral materials from the Dead Sea. The goods in question

were labelled “Made by Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd., Dead Sea, Israel”: at para. 7.

[89] After mounting a non-violent protest, the defendants were arrested and charged with

aggravated trespass contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public

Order Act. This provision makes it an offence to trespass on land, where a person or persons

lawfully on the land are engaged in, or are about to engage in a lawful activity, and the person

charged with the offence does an act on the land that is intended to intimidate all or some of

those engaged in the activity from engaging in that activity, or to obstruct or disrupt that activity.

Page: 25

[90] The defendants contested the charge, arguing that the activities carried on in the shop in

question were not lawful, as they involved the commission of criminal offences. One such

alleged offence was the sale of products labelled in a way that was false or misleading, because

the Occupied Palestinian Territories were not recognized internationally or by the United

Kingdom as part of the State of Israel, thus contravening the Consumer Protection from Unfair

Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) and the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008

(SI 2008/1284).

[91] With respect to the labelling of cosmetic products from the Dead Sea, the Court found in

Richardson that the legislative intent behind the labelling legislation in question was consumer

safety, and not accuracy relating to the political status of the territories in question. Nor was it

intended to inform consumers about public international law issues: at para. 23.

[92] I do not accept the respondent’s arguments.

[93] Dealing first with the significance of the Richardson decision, the United Kingdom

Supreme Court held in that case that the objective of the labelling legislation at issue in that case

was the safety of the consumer, rather than disputed issues of territoriality: at para. 23. The Court

further found that there was no basis for finding that the average consumer would be misled with

respect to the origin of the products in issue because the source was described as being politically

or constitutionally Israel when it was in fact the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This was

because the origin of the products “was after all correctly labelled as the Dead Sea”.

[94] There is no comparable statement on the labels on the Settlement Wines. They do not

identify the source of the Settlement Wines as being “Israeli settlements in the West Bank”, “the

Page: 26

West Bank” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories”. Rather they are identified only as coming

from the State of Israel – something that the parties agree is simply not the case.

[95] There is a second point of distinction between the situation that confronted the United

Kingdom Supreme Court in the Richardson case and the present situation. In Richardson, the

Court concluded that the objective of the labelling regulations in issue in that case was “clearly

safety of the consumer”: at para. 23. While the same may be said of the Canadian Food and

Drug Regulations at issue here, it is evident from a review of the legislative history of the

country of origin requirements that consumer safety was not the only objective of the labelling

legislation. As will be discussed in greater detail below, I have found as a fact that another

objective of the Canadian labelling legislation was allowing consumers to make informed

decisions about the products that they purchase in order to allow them to “buy conscientiously”.

[96] While it is true that the extracts from Hansard relied upon by the respondent describe the

purpose of the Food and Drugs Act as being the protection of Canadians “in matters of health”,

the Minister of the day was clear that the Bill was also concerned “with the prevention of

deception in the manufacture and sale of goods consumed by the public”.

[97] Insofar as the debates surrounding the enactment of the Consumer Packaging and

Labelling Act are concerned, the responsible Minister noted that one of the principles underlying

the proposed legislation was “the provision of full and factual information on labels”. The

Minister further observed that the provision of such information “is a fundamental requirement

of the consumer movement”.

Page: 27

[98] The Minister went on to state that it is a “fundamental axiom” of the consumer movement

that “consumers ought to be able to exercise a rational choice”. In order to be able to “buy

conscientiously”, consumers had to have the information necessary “to make well informed

decisions and well informed and rational choices”.

[99] Moreover, as the respondent’s affiant acknowledged in his cross-examination, “accurate

food labelling is important as it ensures that products are not being misrepresented to Canadians.

The label provides consumers with information that helps them make informed decisions about

the food that they purchase for themselves and their families”.

[100] It is true that section B.02.108 of the Food and Drug Regulations requires that there be a

clear indication of the country of origin shown on the principal display panel of wines sold in

Canada. This provision cannot, however, be read in a vacuum. Regard must also be had to

subsection 7(1) of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act which provides that no one shall

“sell, import into Canada or advertise any prepackaged product that has applied to it a label

containing any false or misleading representation that relates to or may reasonably be regarded as

relating to that product”. Consideration must also be given to subsection 5(1) of the Food and

Drugs Act, which prohibits the sale or advertising of any food “in a manner that is false,

misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character,

value, quantity, composition, merit or safety”.

[101] Given that there is no dispute about the fact that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank

are not part of the territory of the State of Israel, identifying Settlement Wines as being “Products

of Israel” is false, misleading and deceptive. Moreover, as will be discussed further on in these

reasons, labelling Settlement Wines as “Products of Israel” interferes with the ability of

Page: 28

Canadian consumers to make “well informed decisions and well informed and rational choices”

in order to be able to “buy conscientiously”.

[102] In addition, while the Food and Drug Regulations do require that there be a clear

indication of the country of origin shown on the labels of wines sold in Canada, the respondent

acknowledges that exceptions are made to the labelling requirements in certain circumstances.

[103] That is, guidelines promulgated by the CFIA state that wines produced in the United

States do not have to state that they are “Products of the United States”. According to these

guidelines, it will be sufficient if the labels on American-produced wines include a statement

such as “Blush Merlot of California”, rather than identifying the wine in question as being a

“Product of the United States”.

[104] The CFIA guidelines explain that identifying a wine as being a “Product of California”

will fulfill the requirement that a country of origin be identified on the wines’ labels “as the

requirements do not specify the wording of the country of origin statement; … and it is unlikely

that anyone would be misled regarding the origin of the product”. That is, consumers would

know that California is part of the United States.

[105] The rationale cited by the respondent for allowing an exception to be made to the country

of origin labelling requirements for American-produced wines is thus that it is unlikely that

anyone would be misled regarding the origin of California wines, as consumers would know that

California is part of the United States.

[106] That should be contrasted with the situation here. There is no suggestion that most

Canadians would know that the Psâgot and Shiloh settlements are in the West Bank. This makes

Page: 29

it all the more likely that consumers would be misled by labelling wines produced in these

settlements as “Products of Israel”.

[107] Insofar as the CFIA’s and CAO’s reliance on the definitions provided for in CIFTA is

concerned, according to its preamble, CIFTA was intended to establish a “free trade area between

the two countries through the removal of trade barriers” to “strengthen economic relations and to

promote economic development”. It thus creates a customs union between Canada and Israel,

addressing barriers to trade between the two countries, and setting the tariffs to be applied to

goods imported from Israel.

[108] Barriers to trade typically involve matters such as tariffs, quotas and subsidies. Domestic

consumer protection legislation of general application requiring that product labels be true and

non-misleading is not a barrier to trade. It is, rather, a legislative measure intended to inform and

protect Canadian consumers.

[109] The objectives of CIFTA are clearly set out in Article 1.2 of the agreement. This states

that the purpose if the agreement “is to eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the movement

of, goods between the territories of the Parties, and thereby to promote conditions of fair

competition and increase substantially investment opportunities in the free trade area”.

[110] The wording of Article 1.4.1(b) is, moreover, clear that the definition of “territory”

provided for in CIFTA is intended to apply only to matters coming within that Agreement. There

is no suggestion in CIFTA that its definition of “territory” has any application outside of the

CIFTA context, or that it has any application to Canada’s domestic laws relating to consumer

protection and product labelling.

Page: 30

[111] Indeed, Article 4.2 of CIFTA specifically excludes its application to standards-related

matters, providing that “[t]he rights and obligations of the Parties relating to standards-related

measures shall be governed by the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade [of the World

Trade Organization]”.

[112] Reliance on the CIFTA definition of “territory” for the purposes of Canadian product

labelling requirements also leads to a false and misleading result. It is thus unreasonable.

[113] While this finding is sufficient to dispose of this matter, mention should also be made of

the fact that a decision on the product labelling issue also arguably engages “Charter Values”, as

this is something that may have to be addressed when this matter is re-determined. This will be

discussed next.

X. The CAO’s Decision and “Charter Values”

[114] Subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the

Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, declares

that everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, including “freedom of conscience and religion”

and “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression …”.

[115] As was noted earlier, and as IJVC observes, a primary purpose of the legislation at issue

in this case is to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate information so as to allow

them to make informed decisions about the products that they choose to buy.

[116] IJVC notes that consumers have long expressed their political views through their

purchasing choices. Examples of this cited by IJVC include the boycott of California grapes in

Page: 31

the 1960s and 1970s as an expression of solidarity with farm workers, and the pre-1994 boycott

of South African wines as an expression of support for the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

[117] In a similar vein, IJVC further notes that some individuals opposed to the creation of

Israeli Settlements in the West Bank express their opposition to the settlements and their support

for the Palestinian cause through their purchasing choices, boycotting products produced in the

Settlements. In order to be able to express their political views in this manner, however,

consumers need to have accurate information as to the origin of the products under

consideration. Identifying Settlement Wines incorrectly as “Products of Israel” inhibits the

ability of such individuals to express their political views through their purchasing choices,

thereby limiting their Charter-protected right to freedom of expression.

[118] In R. v. Guignard, 2002 SCC 14, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472, the Supreme Court stated that it

attaches great weight to freedom of expression, emphasizing “the societal importance of freedom

of expression and the special place it occupies in Canadian constitutional law”: at para. 19. The

Court further noted that freedom of expression plays a critical role in the development of

Canadian society, making it possible for individuals to express their views on any subject

relating to life in society: Guignard, above at para. 20.

[119] The Supreme Court also observed that freedom of expression protects not just accepted

opinions, but also those that are “challenging”: Guignard, above at para. 19, citing R. v. Sharpe,

2001 SCC 2, at para. 21, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45.

[120] Moreover, in decisions such as Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1

S.C.R. 395, Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 S.C.R.

Page: 32

613, and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2

S.C.R. 293, the Supreme Court has held that where a discretionary administrative decision

engages the protections enumerated in the Charter, the decision-maker “is required to

proportionately balance the Charter protections to ensure that they are limited no more than is

necessary given the applicable statutory objectives that she or he is obliged to pursue”: Loyola,

above at para. 4.

[121] While Dr. Kattenburg did not make specific reference to the implications that the CFIA’s

reversal decision had for his Charter-protected right to freedom of expression in his complaint,

he did state in his appeal to the CAO that “many [consumers] would elect not to purchase these

wines” if they were aware that they “profit individuals who are complicit in a war crime”.

Moreover, his submissions to both the CFIA and the CAO were replete with references to

political issues, including his views as to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the West

Bank.

[122] For example, Dr. Kattenburg states in his letter of appeal to the CAO that “[l]ike many

other members of the Jewish community in Canada, [he] objects to the State of Israel’s disregard

for international law”. He goes on to clearly identify the political issues that are associated with

the labelling of wines produced in the Israeli settlements.

[123] Dr. Kattenburg further stated in his submissions to the CAO that an individual lobbying

the CFIA to have it reverse its initial decision “acted contrary to the interests of Canadian

consumers, and contrary to the values of Canadians of conscience”. His counsel also cited

Charter jurisprudence in his submissions to the CAO in connection with Dr. Kattenburg’s appeal.

Page: 33

[124] It is thus apparent that freedom of expression issues were implicated in Dr. Kattenburg’s

appeal. The CAO did not, however, address these issues in its decision, buttressing my

conclusion that the CAO’s decision was unreasonable.

XI. Conclusion

[125] There are few things as difficult and intractable as Middle East politics, and the presence

of Israeli settlements in the West Bank raises difficult, deeply-felt and sensitive political issues.

[126] One peaceful way in which people can express their political views is through their

purchasing decisions. To be able to express their views in this manner, however, consumers

have to be provided with accurate information as to the source of the products in question.

[127] In addition, Canadian federal legislation requires that food products (including wines)

that are sold in Canada bear truthful, non-deceptive and non-misleading country of origin labels.

[128] The effect of the CAO’s decision was to affirm the CFIA’s conclusion that it is

permissible to label wines produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “Products of

Israel” when that is not in fact the case. These labels are thus false, misleading and deceptive. As

such, they contravene the requirements of subsection 7(1) of the Consumer Packaging and

Labelling Act and subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.

[129] A decision that allows Settlement Wines to be labelled as “Products of Israel” thus does

not fall within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the

facts and law. It is, rather, unreasonable.

Page: 34

[130] As a consequence, Dr. Kattenburg’s application for judicial review is allowed. In

accordance with the agreement of the parties, no order will be made as to costs.

[131] Finally, it is not appropriate for this Court to determine how the Settlement Wines should

be labelled. That is a matter for the CFIA. Consequently, the recommendation made by the CAO

is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the CAO for redetermination.

Page: 35

JUDGMENT IN T-1620-17

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to

the CAO for re-determination.

“Anne L. Mactavish”

Judge

Page: 36

Appendix

Consumer Packaging and Labelling

Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-38

Loi sur l’emballage et l’étiquetage

des produits de consommation,

L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-38

Interpretation Définitions

Definitions Définitions

2 (1) In this Act, 2 (1) Les définitions qui suivent

s’appliquent à la présente loi.

[…] […]

dealer means a person who is a

retailer, manufacturer, processor or

producer of a product, or a person

who is engaged in the business of

importing, packing or selling any

product; (fournisseur)

fournisseur Détaillant, producteur

ou fabricant d’un produit, ou

quiconque procède à sa

transformation, son importation, son

emballage ou sa vente. (dealer)

Application of Act Champ d’application

Application despite other Acts Application

3 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and

(3) and any regulations made under

section 18, the provisions of this Act

that are applicable to any product

apply despite any other Act of

Parliament.

3 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes

(2) et (3) et de tout règlement pris

sous le régime de l’article 18, les

dispositions de la présente loi qui

sont applicables à un produit

s’appliquent malgré toute autre loi

fédérale.

Representations relating to

prepackaged products

Étiquetage contenant des

renseignements faux

7 (1) No dealer shall apply to any

prepackaged product or sell, import

into Canada or advertise any

prepackaged product that has applied

to it a label containing any false or

misleading representation that relates

to or may reasonably be regarded as

relating to that product.

7 (1) Le fournisseur ne peut apposer

sur un produit préemballé un

étiquetage qui contient de

l’information fausse ou trompeuse se

rapportant au produit — ou pouvant

raisonnablement donner cette

impression —, ni vendre, importer ou

annoncer un produit préemballé ainsi

étiqueté.

Page: 37

Definition of false or misleading

representation

Définition de information fausse ou

trompeuse

(2) For the purposes of this section,

false or misleading representation

includes

(2) Pour l’application du présent

article et relativement à un produit

préemballé, information fausse ou

trompeuse s’entend notamment :

[…] […]

(c) any description or illustration of

the type, quality, performance,

function, origin or method of

manufacture or production of a

prepackaged product that may

reasonably be regarded as likely to

deceive a consumer with respect to

the matter so described or illustrated.

c) de toute description ou illustration

de ses genre, qualité, tenue à l’usage,

fonction, origine ou mode de

fabrication ou de production qui peut

raisonnablement être jugée de nature

à tromper sur l’objet de la description

ou de l’illustration.

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.

F-27

Loi sur les aliments et drogues,

L.R.C. (1985), ch. F-27

PART I PARTIE I

Food, Drugs, Cosmetics and

Devices

Aliments, drogues, cosmétiques et

instruments

Deception, etc. regarding food Fraude

5 (1) No person shall label, package,

treat, process, sell or advertise any

food in a manner that is false,

misleading or deceptive or is likely to

create an erroneous impression

regarding its character, value,

quantity, composition, merit or

safety.

5 (1) Il est interdit d’étiqueter,

d’emballer, de traiter, de préparer ou

de vendre un aliment — ou d’en faire

la publicité — de manière fausse,

trompeuse ou mensongère ou

susceptible de créer une fausse

impression quant à sa nature, sa

valeur, sa quantité, sa composition,

ses avantages ou sa sûreté.

[…] […]

Page: 38

Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C.,

c. 870

Règlement sur les aliments et

drogues, C.R.C., ch. 870

[…] […]

DIVISION 2 TITRE 2

Alcoholic Beverages Boissons alcooliques

Wine Vin

B.02.108 A clear indication of the

country of origin shall be shown on

the principal display panel of a wine.

B.02.108 Le pays d’origine doit être

clairement indiqué sur l’espace

principal de l’étiquette d’un vin.

[…] […]

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Accord de libre-échange CanadaIsraël

Chapter One – Objectives Chapitre 1 -Objectifs

Article 1.2 : Objective Article 1.2: Objectif

1. The objective of this Agreement,

as elaborated more specifically in its

provisions, is to eliminate barriers to

trade in, and facilitate the movement

of, goods between the territories of

the Parties, and thereby to promote

conditions of fair competition and

increase substantially investment

opportunities in the free trade area.

1. L’objectif du présent accord, défini

de façon plus précise dans ses

dispositions, consiste à éliminer les

obstacles au commerce et à faciliter

le mouvement des produits entre les

territoires des Parties, de manière à

favoriser une concurrence équitable

et à augmenter substantiellement les

possibilités d’investissement dans la

zone de libre-échange.

[…] […]

Page: 39

Article 1.4: Definitions of General

Application

Article 1.4 : Définitions

d’application générale

1. For the purposes of this

Agreement, unless otherwise

specified:

1. Aux fins du présent accord, et sauf

stipulation contraire :

[…] […]

Territory means: Territoire s’entend :

[…] […]

(b) with respect to Israel the territory

where its customs laws are applied;

b) dans le cas d’Israël, du territoire

auquel s’applique la législation

douanière d’Israël.

[…] […]

Chapter Four – National

Treatment and Other Border

Measures

Chapitre 4 – Traitement national et

autres mesures à la frontière

Article 4.2: Technical Barriers to

Trade

Article 4.2 : Obstacles techniques

au commerce

1. The rights and obligations of the

Parties relating to standards-related

measures shall be governed by the

Agreement on Technical Barriers to

Trade, part of Annex 1A of the WTO

Agreement.

1. Les droits et obligations des Parties

concernant les mesures normatives

seront régis par l’Accord sur les

obstacles techniques au commerce,

qui fait partie de l’annexe 1A de

l’Accord sur l’OMC.

[…] […]

Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution

Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the

Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11

Charte canadienne des droits et

libertés, partie I de la Loi

constitutionnelle de 1982, annexe B

de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada (R.-

U.), 1982, ch. 11,

Fundamental Freedoms Libertés fondamentales

2. Everyone has the following

fundamental freedoms:

2. Chacun a les libertés

fondamentales suivantes

[…] […]

Page: 40

(b) freedom of thought, belief,

opinion and expression, including

freedom of the press and other media

of communication;

b) liberté de pensée, de croyance,

d’opinion et d’expression, y compris

la liberté de la presse et des autres

moyens de communication;

Regulations Defining Certain

Expressions for the Purposes of the

Customs Tariff, SOR/97-62

Règlement définissant certaines

expressions pour l’application du

Tarif des douanes, DORS/97-62

Expressions Defined Définitions

1 For the purposes of the Customs

Tariff, the following expressions are

defined.

1 Les expressions suivantes sont

définies pour l’application du Tarif

des douanes.

[…] […]

Israel or another CIFTA

beneficiary means the territory

where the customs laws of Israel are

applied and includes the territory

where those laws are applied in

accordance with Article III of the

Protocol on Economic Relations set

out in Annex V of the IsraeliPalestinian Interim Agreement on the

West Bank and the Gaza Strip, dated

September 28, 1995, as that Protocol

is amended from time to time. (Israël

ou autre bénéficiaire de l’ALÉCI)

Israël ou autre bénéficiaire de

l’ALÉCI Le territoire où est

appliquée la législation douanière

d’Israël, y compris le territoire où elle

est appliquée en conformité avec

l’article III du document intitulé

Protocol on Economic Relations,

avec ses modifications successives,

figurant à l’annexe V du document

intitulé Israeli-Palestinian Interim

Agreement on the West Bank and the

Gaza Strip, du 28 septembre 1995.

(Israel or another CIFTA beneficiary)

[…] […]

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Act, S.C. 1997, c. 6

Loi sur l’Agence canadienne

d’inspection des aliments, L.C. 1997,

ch. 6

Preamble Préambule

WHEREAS the Government of

Canada wishes to enhance the

effectiveness and efficiency of

federal inspection and related

services for food and animal and

plant health by consolidating them;

Attendu :

que le gouvernement fédéral se

propose de regrouper les services

fédéraux d’inspection des aliments,

des animaux et des végétaux et les

autres services connexes en vue de

les rendre plus efficaces;

[…] […]

Page: 41

Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36 Tarif des douanes, L.C. 1997, ch. 36

[…] […]

Canada–Israel Agreement Tariff Tarif de l’Accord Canada — Israël

Application of CIAT Application du TACI

50 (1) Subject to section 24, goods

that originate in Israel or another

CIFTA beneficiary are entitled to the

Canada–Israel Agreement Tariff rates

of customs duty.

50 (1) Sous réserve de l’article 24, les

marchandises originaires d’Israël ou

d’un autre bénéficiaire de l’ALÉCI

bénéficient des taux du tarif de

l’Accord Canada — Israël.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: T-1620-17

STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID KATTENBURG v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: MAY 21, 2019 AND MAY 22, 2019

JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MACTAVISH J.

DATED: JULY 29, 2019

APPEARANCES:

A. Dimitri Lascaris FOR THE APPLICANT

Gail Sinclair

Negar Hashemi

FOR THE RESPONDENT

Barbara Jackman FOR THE INTERVENER

INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES OF CANADA

David Matas FOR THE INTERVENER

LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

A. Dimitri Lascaris Law

Professional Corporation

Barristers and Solicitors

Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANT

Attorney General of Canada

Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

Jackman and Associates

Barristers and Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE INTERVENER

INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES OF CANADA

David Matas

Barrister and Solicitor

Winnipeg, Manitoba

FOR THE INTERVENER

LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH