Law360 Canada ( October 30, 2025, 9:51 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant Biogenie Canada Inc. from decision of trial judge dismissing its application for judicial review of the seizure and detention of two soil products (Decision). The trial judge found that the impugned provisions were validly enacted under the concurrent jurisdiction over agriculture in s. 95 of the Constitution Act, and the federal jurisdiction over criminal law in ss. 91(27) of the same Act. He also found that they were not contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for being overbroad. Finally, he held that the regulatory provisions at issue did not constitute a prohibited subdelegation or an abdication of power, and that the decisions made by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in exercising its powers were not unreasonable. On appeal, the issues were whether the trial judge erred in finding that the Fertilizers Act (Act) and the Fertilizer Regulations (Regulations) fell within the concurrent jurisdiction over agriculture, and whether they fell within the federal jurisdiction over criminal law. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that s. 3.1 of the Act and s. 2.1 of the Regulations were not overbroad. Furthermore, it argued that the trial judge erred in finding that s. 2.1 of the Regulations did not constitute an illegal subdelegation....