are meeting quality standards. This complements, rather than
frustrates, the purpose of the federal legislation.
The Canada Agricultural Products Act
 The CAP Act regulates the marketing and possession of
an agricultural product for import, export or interprovincial
trade. Under the Icewine Regulations, SOR/2014-10 (the “CAP
Reg”), there are several provisions that are relevant to icewine.
They include the following:
2. Only wine that is made exclusively from grapes naturally frozen on the
vine is icewine, ice wine or ice-wine.
3. It is prohibited for any person to label a product in Canada with the designation icewine, ice wine or ice-wine unless the product meets the standard set
out in section 2 and an entity acting under the authority of the law of the
province in which the product was made has determined that the product is
wine that was made exclusively from grapes naturally frozen on the vine.
 The Applicant argues that the VQAO’s prohibition against
it using the term “icewine” on its labels frustrates the purpose of
the CAP Act. It conceded that there was not an operational conflict between the CAP Act and the Act.
 There is no merit to the Applicant’s submission. The CAP
Act’s purpose of “provid[ing] for national standards and grades of
agricultural products” is harmonious with the Act’s consumer
protection purposes. The CAP Act sets out a minimum standard,
which specifically contemplates the involvement of a provincial
authority such as the VQAO.
 The Applicant’s argument on this point is the same as the
one that the Supreme Court rejected in Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan,  1 S.C.R. 188,  S.C.J.
No. 1, 2005 SCC 13. In Rothmans, a tobacco company argued that
a provincial tobacco labelling law frustrated the purpose of a federal tobacco labelling law, by imposing additional requirements.
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the federal and provincial laws served the same purpose: public health. The same is
true for the Act and the CAP Act. They both serve the same purpose: consumer protection.
 The Applicant also submitted in oral argument that the
VQAO’s actions in regulating the Applicant’s use of reserved
terms such as “icewine” was unconstitutional because it was not
limited to the intra-provincial use of these terms. According to
the Applicant, the VQAO also purported to control labelling in
the inter-provincial context and in the context of importing and
exporting. The respondent VQAO made it clear that it did not
have and did not seek to exercise jurisdiction beyond the intra-provincial context. Sometimes manufacturers were unable to sell