Wrigley Canada v. Canada
T-2107-97
Richard A.C.J.
23/3/99
9 pp.
Motion for summary judgment in nature of declaration-Plaintiff seeking declaration product EXTRA Sugarfree Gum food, not drug as defined in Food and Drugs Act, even if use represented to prevent dental cavities-EXTRA Sugarfree Gum currently packaged, labelled, sold as food-Whether plaintiff's EXTRA Sugarfree Gum falls within Act's definition of "food" or, if use represented to prevent dental cavities, within Act's definition of "drug"-Drugs more stringently regulated than foods-Line between regulation of foods and regulation of drugs drawn so as to promote protection of public interest by ensuring products claiming to have health benefits as described in definition of "drug" safe, effective-Product in issue, EXTRA Sugarfree Gum, substance, mixture of substances as contemplated by definition of "drug" in Act, s. 2-Chewing gum not losing potential to be "drug" under appropriate conditions merely by inclusion in definition of "food"-EXTRA Sugarfree Gum falling within Food and Drugs Act definition of drug, if use represented to prevent dental cavities-Motion for summary judgment dismissed-Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, s. 2 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 27, s. 191).