[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_fullwidth_header title=”Canada” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”off” background_image=”https:\/\/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca\/climatechangelitigation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5357\/2021\/02\/2880px-Flag_of_Canada_Pantone.svg.png” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_fullwidth_header][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”c10f6128-6282-4da3-b542-40fbfeb07853″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” min_height=”558.6px” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Several cases are currently pending in Canadian courts<\/strong> in which the plaintiffs allege that either the federal government or a provincial government is making insufficient efforts to protect the plaintiffs from the threats of climate change.<\/strong><\/p>\n These cases are based on two main allegations:<\/p>\n 1. The actions taken by the government which contribute to climate change, or respectively the insufficient measures taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions and prevent climate change, violate the plaintiffs\u2019 constitutional rights under sec. 7 and sec. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em> (Charter<\/em>).<\/p>\n Sec. 7 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.<\/p>\n Sec. 15 para. 1 states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.<\/p>\n 2. The government violates its obligations to protect the climate and other natural resources under the Public Trust Doctrine.<\/p>\n One of the essential questions raised in these cases is whether the claims made by the plaintiffs are justiciable. In other words: Do courts have the competency and legitimacy to decide whether the government\u2019s climate policies are insufficient, or is this a purely political matter that should be left to the government and legislature to decide?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Two early climate-related lawsuits with regard to Canada\u2019s commitments under the Kyoto protocol were both dismissed by the courts as non-justiciable.<\/strong><\/p>\n One claim was brought by Friends of the Earth <\/em>in 2009, demanding that the Canadian government comply with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.<\/em> The second claim, brought by Daniel Turp in 2012, challenged Canada\u2019s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_toggle title=”Friends of the Earth v. Canada (Governor in Council) (re. Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act)” open_toggle_text_color=”#FFFFFF” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” title_text_color=”#FFFFFF” title_level=”h3″ title_font=”Heebo|600|||||||” title_text_align=”left” body_font=”|300|||||||” body_text_color=”#FFFFFF” body_font_size=”16px” use_background_color_gradient=”on” background_color_gradient_stops=”#666666 0%|#ffffff 100%” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”on” background_color_gradient_start=”#666666″ background_color_gradient_end=”#ffffff” background_image=”https:\/\/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca\/climatechangelitigation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5357\/2020\/10\/environmental-nonprofit-20.jpg” background_blend=”multiply” border_radii=”on|10px|10px|10px|10px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The Canadian liberal government had signed onto the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and committed Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The conservative government which came into power in 2006 was opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and made clear that it did not intend to implement it.<\/p>\n Parliament subsequently passed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA)<\/em> which included various provisions to make the government comply with Canada\u2019s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. When the government failed to do so, the ENGO Friends of the Earth<\/em> brought a legal challenge.<\/p>\n The Court, however, found the matter to be non-justiciable and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n For more on this case, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_toggle][et_pb_toggle title=”Turp v. Canada (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) (re. Withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol)” open_toggle_text_color=”#FFFFFF” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” title_text_color=”#FFFFFF” title_level=”h3″ title_font=”Heebo|600|||||||” title_text_align=”left” body_font=”|300|||||||” body_text_color=”#FFFFFF” body_font_size=”16px” use_background_color_gradient=”on” background_color_gradient_stops=”#666666 0%|#ffffff 100%” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”on” background_color_gradient_start=”#666666″ background_color_gradient_end=”#ffffff” background_image=”https:\/\/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca\/climatechangelitigation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5357\/2020\/10\/environmental-nonprofit-20.jpg” background_blend=”multiply” border_radii=”on|10px|10px|10px|10px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The conservative Canadian government decided in 2011 to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The Applicant Turp argued that the withdrawal violated the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA) <\/em>as well as the separation of powers and the democratic principle.<\/p>\n The Court found that there was no such violation. Since the conduct of foreign affairs and international relations falls exclusively under the executive branch of government, it is not reviewable by courts.<\/p>\n For more on this case, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_toggle][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”182253b6-53be-4c99-bf84-39f4725968d6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The following cases are currently pending in Canadian courts:<\/strong><\/p>\n La Rose v. Canada<\/em><\/a>, brought in Federal Court in October 2019, is the most prominent case challenging Canada\u2019s actions and inactions with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_toggle title=”La Rose v. Canada” open_toggle_text_color=”#FFFFFF” _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_text_color=”#FFFFFF” title_level=”h3″ title_font=”Heebo|600|||||||” title_text_align=”left” body_font=”|300|||||||” body_text_color=”#FFFFFF” body_font_size=”16px” use_background_color_gradient=”on” background_color_gradient_stops=”#666666 0%|#ffffff 100%” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”on” background_color_gradient_start=”#666666″ background_color_gradient_end=”#ffffff” background_image=”https:\/\/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca\/climatechangelitigation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5357\/2020\/10\/environmental-nonprofit-20.jpg” background_blend=”multiply” border_radii=”on|10px|10px|10px|10px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The Applicants, fifteen children and youth from across Canada, argue that Canada is contributing to and allowing an excessive amount of greenhouse gas emissions. This, the Applicants allege, violates their fundamentals rights as well as Canada\u2019s responsibilities under the public trust doctrine.<\/p>\n The Federal Court struck out the claim, holding that the Charter <\/em>challenges are not justiciable because they do not target a specific law or policy. The Court is not in a position to evaluate Canada\u2019s overall approach to climate change. With regard to the public trust doctrine, the Court found that while this is in principle a justiciable issue, such a doctrine has not been recognized in Canadian law.<\/p>\n In December 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision, allowing the Charter<\/em> challenge to proceed to trial.<\/p>\n For more on this case, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_toggle][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”182253b6-53be-4c99-bf84-39f4725968d6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n Misdzi Yikh v. Canada<\/em><\/a> (also known as Lho\u2019imggin et al. v. Canada<\/em><\/a>) involves a similar legal claim, brought on behalf of two house groups of the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n Mathur v. Ontario<\/em><\/a> is slightly different from the two previously mentioned cases, not only because the Defendant is a provincial government, but especially because the lawsuit targets a specific law and a climate change plan which is based on this law.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_toggle title=”Mathur v. Ontario” open_toggle_text_color=”#FFFFFF” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” title_text_color=”#FFFFFF” title_level=”h3″ title_font=”Heebo|600|||||||” title_text_align=”left” body_font=”|300|||||||” body_text_color=”#FFFFFF” body_font_size=”16px” use_background_color_gradient=”on” background_color_gradient_stops=”#666666 0%|#ffffff 100%” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”on” background_color_gradient_start=”#666666″ background_color_gradient_end=”#ffffff” background_image=”https:\/\/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca\/climatechangelitigation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5357\/2020\/10\/environmental-nonprofit-20.jpg” background_blend=”multiply” border_radii=”on|10px|10px|10px|10px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Ontario had previously enacted the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016<\/em>, which established a cap and trade program as well as three targets for reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario by 15% by the end of 2020, by 37% by the end of 2030, and by 80% by the end of 2050, compared to 1990 levels.<\/p>\n In 2018, Ontario repealed the Act and instead published a Plan which foresees lower greenhouse gas reduction goals of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.<\/p>\n Seven young Ontario residents challenged these new reduction goals as insufficient and in violation of their rights under sec. 7 and sec. 15 of the Charter.<\/em><\/p>\n In a first step, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a motion by Ontario to strike out the claim, allowing the case to proceed to the \u201cmain\u201d stage of merits review. The Ontario government is currently appealing the decision.<\/p>\n For more on this case, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_toggle][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”182253b6-53be-4c99-bf84-39f4725968d6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n<\/h1>\n
<\/h1>\n