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:
Citation: 2019 FC 1003
Ottawa, Ontario, July 29, 2019
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
 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”.
 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.
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.
 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”.
 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.
 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.
I. The Parties
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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
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.
 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
 Two organizations were granted leave to intervene in this application.
 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”.
 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
 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
 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.
 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
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.
 Not having received a satisfactory response to his complaint, Dr. Kattenburg complained
directly to the CFIA about the labelling issue on March 31, 2017.
 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.
 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”,
“Product of Palestine” or “Product of the Psâgot Settlement” or “Product of the Shiloh
Settlement”, as the case may be.
 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
 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”.
 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.
 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
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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
VII. Standard of Review
 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.
 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.
 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,  1 S.C.R. 190.
 The starting point for this analysis is the rebuttable presumption that reasonableness will
be the applicable standard of review.
 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
v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67 at paras. 21 and 22,  3 S.C.R.
895; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011
SCC 61 at para. 39,  3 S.C.R. 654; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 at para. 27,  S.C.J. No. 31.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
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.
 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,  3 S.C.R. 77.
 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, 
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,  3 S.C.R. 616; Saskatchewan (Human
Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 at para. 168,  1 S.C.R. 467; Kanthasamy v.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para. 44,  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,  1 S.C.R. 29; Alberta Teachers¸ above at para. 32; Barreau du Québec v.
Quebec (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 56 at para. 18,  2 S.C.R. 488; Canadian National
Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40 at paras. 60 and 62,  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.
 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
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.
 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
 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
 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]”.
 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.
 Global Affairs Canada clearly has expertise in matters of international geopolitics, once
again suggesting the need for deference in this case.
 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,  3 S.C.R. 708.
VIII. The Legislative Regime
 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.
 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
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
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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
 With this understanding of the legislative regime, I turn now to consider whether the
CAO’s decision was reasonable.
IX. Was the CAO’s Decision Reasonable?
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Before addressing the merits of the applicant’s arguments, there are three matters that
should be addressed.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
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
 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.
 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.
 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, 
1 F.C. 331. As a consequence, I decline to have regard to the contents of the emails in question.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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.
 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”.
 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”.
 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:
 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
 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
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
 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.
 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.
 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”.
 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.
 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”.
 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,  UKSC 8,  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.
 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.
 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
 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.
 I do not accept the respondent’s arguments.
 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”.
 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
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.
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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”.
 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
Canadian consumers to make “well informed decisions and well informed and rational choices”
in order to be able to “buy conscientiously”.
 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.
 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”.
 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.
 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.
 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
it all the more likely that consumers would be misled by labelling wines produced in these
settlements as “Products of Israel”.
 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.
 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.
 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”.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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
X. The CAO’s Decision and “Charter Values”
 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 …”.
 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.
 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
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.
 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.
 In R. v. Guignard, 2002 SCC 14,  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.
 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,  1 S.C.R. 45.
 Moreover, in decisions such as Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12,  1
S.C.R. 395, Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12,  1 S.C.R.
613, and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32,  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.
 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
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
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”
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
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
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
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
Representations relating to
Étiquetage contenant des
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
Definition of false or misleading
Définition de information fausse ou
(2) For the purposes of this section,
false or misleading representation
(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.
Loi sur les aliments et drogues,
L.R.C. (1985), ch. F-27
PART I PARTIE I
Food, Drugs, Cosmetics and
Aliments, drogues, cosmétiques et
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
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.
Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C.,
Règlement sur les aliments et
drogues, C.R.C., ch. 870
DIVISION 2 TITRE 2
Alcoholic Beverages Boissons alcooliques
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.
Article 1.4: Definitions of General
Article 1.4 : Définitions
1. For the purposes of this
Agreement, unless otherwise
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
Chapter Four – National
Treatment and Other Border
Chapitre 4 – Traitement national et
autres mesures à la frontière
Article 4.2: Technical Barriers to
Article 4.2 : Obstacles techniques
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
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
2. Chacun a les libertés
(b) freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media
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
1 Les expressions suivantes sont
définies pour l’application du Tarif
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,
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;
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;
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.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID KATTENBURG v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 21, 2019 AND MAY 22, 2019
JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MACTAVISH J.
DATED: JULY 29, 2019
A. Dimitri Lascaris FOR THE APPLICANT
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
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE APPLICANT
Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Jackman and Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE INTERVENER
INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES OF CANADA
Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE INTERVENER
LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH