EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Wrigley Canada v. Canada
A-252-99
Evans J.A.
10/5/00
6 pp.
Appeal from Motions Judge's declaration representation "Extra" Sugarfree Gum preventing dental cavities bringing "Extra" Sugarfree Gum within statutory definition of drug, even though definition of "food" in Food and Drugs Act, s. 2 including chewing gum ((1999), 164 F.T.R. 283)--Health Canada twice refusing appellant's application for approval of "Extra" Sugarfree Gum as drug when represented as preventing dental decay--Definition of "drug" including "any substances . . . represented for use in (a) the prevention of disease, disorder . . . in human beings . . ."--"Drugs" can only be sold after regulatory approval obtained on proof of safety, efficacy: selling drugs without necessary approval statutory offence--Argument since chewing gum expressly included in statutory definition of "food", and therefore subject to regulatory standards applicable to food, cannot also be drug simply because health benefit claimed for it, not persuasive--Nothing in either statutory definition of "food", "drugs" or legislative scheme as whole precluding food from also becoming drug if representation made that otherwise brings it within definition of "drug" in s. 2--Categories not mutually exclusive--On other hand definition of "device" expressly not including drug, thus making it clear that those categories not overlapping--S. 3(1) prohibiting advertising food, device, cosmetic, drug as cure for, prevention of, any of diseases or disorders listed in Schedule A of Act, including some of most serious medical conditions to which human beings may be subject--On Trial Judge's interpretation of s. 2(1), meaning of s. 3(1) not changed by inclusion of "food, devices or cosmetics"--Presumption Parliament not unnecessarily including words in statute rebuttable by other provisions in Act--Definition of "drug" in s. 2 having this effect--In addition words not strictly necessary to convey meaning may be added to text of statute to make provision clearer to reader--Inclusion of "food" removing any doubt s. 3(1) applying to good that, apart from claimed medical benefit, is food, not drug--S. 3(1) cannot be interpreted as excluding from other regulatory provisions products claimed to cure, prevent diseases to which prohibition in s. 3(1) not applying--Nor does any significance attach to use of "article" in statutory definition of food and "substance" in definition of drug--Appeal dismissed--Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, ss. 2 "food", "drug", 3(1).