Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Canadian Plastics Ban

Want to keep up with environmental news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On January 30, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a federal regulatory order that classified “plastic manufactured items” (PMI) as toxic substances under Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). 

The classification formed the basis of the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations (SUPP Regulations), which came into force in 2022 and phased-in restrictions (or in some cases, outright bans) on the manufacture, sale and import of single-use plastic products such as check-out bags, straws, and cutlery.

Big plastics manufacturers, joined by the Attorneys General for Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, sued to get the order quashed. They were initially successful, obtaining a 2023 Federal Court judgment that deemed the order to be both unreasonable and unconstitutional. That initial ruling even went so far as to conclude PMI could not be considered a “substance” under CEPA in the first place.

The federal government successfully appealed. In a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Rennie, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal’s three judges disagreed with the Federal Court’s decision on every significant point.

They held that:

• PMI can indeed be regarded a “substance” under CEPA. The Federal Court determined that because “plastic manufactured items” is plural, it was too broad a category to fit under the term “substance” in CEPA. The appellate ruling disagreed, finding this interpretation fails to align with the basic norms of statutory interpretation and s. 33(2) of the Interpretation Act, by which “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.” “Substance” thus includes “substances.”

• The government acted reasonably in adding PMI to the toxic substances list. It had broad discretion to do so under CEPA, and acted in accordance with the scientific evidence before it. It was not obliged to engage in quantitative testing to determine the danger posed by the various plastics, as that was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nor was it obliged to establish a Board of Review prior to listing, given that “none of the objections challenged the fundamental scientific findings” available.

• There was no substantive constitutional question to be decided, as the criminal law power has not been engaged, and no prohibition, sanction, or consequences attach to the order listing PMI as a toxic substance.

The appellate ruling was generally critical of the lower court’s approach, taking it to task for transgressing established principles of judicial review, and going so far as to write, “[a] court cannot redefine the problem…to its own liking and then, on those judicially constructed criteria, find it unreasonable.”

The Court of Appeal determined that the real question at issue in deciding whether it was reasonable to list PMI as ‘toxic’ was whether PMI may enter the environment and cause harm. It was not whether PMI do in fact enter the environment, whether they cause harm in all of their manifestations in all circumstances, or which plastics cause which particular harms.

Accordingly, as there was “overwhelming” scientific evidence that plastics were ubiquitous in the environment and were (or could be) harmful, the federal government operated well within its statutory authority when issuing the order.

The respondents, including the “Responsible Plastic Use Coalition” – a non-profit comprised of the industry’s leading producers, such as Dow Chemical and Imperial Oil – have 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. According to a recent statement, they are currently “reviewing the decision and considering legal options.”

In the meantime, the SUPP Regulations – the applicability of which was preserved pending the outcome of the Federal Court of Appeal challenge – will continue to apply, at least as implemented thus far.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com, or book a consultation, for legal assistance in connection with green business or environmental policy matters.