Second, the appellants argued that the definition of spray foam systems was inappropriate since it included products that were not consumer products, as required by the legislative and regulatory regime. The appellants argued that the high-pressure foam systems were used exclusively by professional workers in commercial settings who had been specially trained in their use.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ argument. The Court of Appeal held that a simple reading of the statutory definition showed that the Department had not exceeded its authority by choosing a definition which included high pressure spray foam systems. The legal definition of a consumer product specifically excluded dental restorative materials, which were used by professionals and not consumers in the colloquial sense, the appeals court noted.
Third, the appellants claimed that the Department exceeded its authority by adopting a definition that included products already covered by existing workplace regulations.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ argument. The Court of Appeal determined that, even if it were assumed that the regulations in force in the workplace perfectly prevented accidents at work due to overexposure by inhalation, these regulations were not designed to protect against the risks known exposures of susceptible subpopulations or dermal contact exposures.