Ottawa wins Federal Court appeal allowing single-use plastics ban to stand

The Federal Court of Appeal has decided that Canada’s ban on single-use plastics will remain in place.

The federal government scored a win at the Federal Court of Appeal on Friday, which upheld Ottawa’s 2021 decision to list “plastic manufactured items” as toxic, allowing it to continue with its ban on several types of single-use items, including straws and grocery bags.

The decision overturns a 2023 Federal Court ruling which struck down the toxic designation, saying it was too broad to designate all such items with the label, in part because plastics were not a singular substance.

The government needed the toxic designation, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to regulate the items. It did that in 2022, phasing in a ban on the manufacturing and sale of six single-use plastic items, including stir sticks, cutlery, takeout containers and the six-pack rings used to hold soda and beer cans.

• READ THE DECISION

The government said at the time it chose those items because they were among the most common found in litter and had known and accessible alternatives.

The regulations banning the items were kept in place pending the government’s appeal of the 2023 decision and can stay in place following the Appeal Court decision upholding the toxic designation.

Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, who oversaw the development of the plastics ban while in cabinet, hailed Friday’s decision as “a major victory” for the government and for Canadians.

“The federal government was entirely justified in listing plastics as toxic, and on the basis of that starting to implement measures to reduce plastic pollution in Canada,” Guilbeault told The Canadian Press.

“I think it is a major victory for the federal government when it comes to using the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that we do a better job of protecting the health of Canadians and protecting our environment.”

The initial decision to list plastics as toxic was challenged by a group representing companies from Canada’s plastics industry, along with three chemical companies which manufacture plastics. In a statement, the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition said it is aware of Friday’s decision and is reviewing it.

Karen Wirsig, the senior program manager for plastics at Environmental Defence, said Friday’s decision came as a relief.

“This vindicates what we’ve been thinking for five years now, that of course, the federal government had every reason and every right to list plastic manufactured items as a toxic substance,” Wirsig told The Canadian Press.

Wirsig said her group will be urging the government to strengthen and expand on its single-use plastics ban.

“What we keep hearing from everybody is why is there so much plastic in the grocery store and so much packaging that doesn’t seem necessary,” she said.

But federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin wouldn’t indicate whether the government intends to broaden its ban on single-use plastics. Pressed repeatedly on the government’s plans after Friday’s ruling, Dabrusin said the day was about affirming the court’s ruling.

“When I do cleanups in the community, in the ravines or along the beaches along Lake Ontario, we don’t find plastic straws in the same numbers at all. It’s pretty rare now that we find them,” Dabrusin said.

“That’s a huge change that’s just come about because of the regulations we have. So today I’m really focusing on that piece.”

Those regulations are the subject of a separate legal challenge that has been on hold pending the outcome of this case.

The Federal Court of Appeal argued the lower court had erred by viewing as one step what was actually a two-step process — the first being designating plastics as toxic under the Act, and the second being regulation of individual plastic items.

Justice Donald J. Rennie, with support from Justices George R. Lock and Sylvie E. Roussel, wrote that “this misunderstanding of the scheme” caused the Federal Court “to reason that because not all plastics enter the environment, not all plastics cause harm.”

In challenging Ottawa’s decision, the plastics industry also argued there was a lack of testing to determine precisely which plastics caused harm, and to what degree, which made Ottawa’s decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed that argument as well.

“To put the matter bluntly … the chemical content of (plastics) is irrelevant to the sea otter choking on a plastic straw. The problem is the plastic item itself, not its chemistry,” the judges wrote.

The judges also wrote the law only requires the “potential to cause harm” in order to list something as toxic under the act.

“On this point, as we shall see, the evidence before (the government) was unequivocal,” the ruling reads.

In initially determining the government’s decision to list plastic products was unreasonable, the Federal Court noted that only one per cent of plastics products enter the environment each year — another argument brought forward by the plastics companies.

Because the Federal Court focused on the percentage, rather than the actual amount, it moved the goalposts on weighing whether Ottawa’s decision was reasonable, the three-judge Appeal Court panel ruled.

“A court cannot redefine the problem before the decision maker to its own liking and then, on those judicially constructed criteria, find it unreasonable,” the appellant judges wrote.

The federal Conservatives, who have opposed a ban on any plastics, were quick to weigh in on the decision Friday.

“Today’s court decision will continue to force the Liberals’ unscientific plastics ban on Canadians, making life more expensive for everyone,” said Ellis Ross, the Conservative party’s environment critic.

“Conservatives will continue to stand up against Liberal policies and taxes that turn basics into luxuries, and fight for an affordable Canada.”

This report from The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 30, 2026.

With files from Mia Rabson

Nick Murray, The Canadian Press