In what some called a game-changing decision, an Ontario court ruled that the provincial government’s weakened climate goals could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ecojustice, Canada’s largest environmental law charity, said the ruling marks the first time Ontario’s highest court has ruled that a government’s climate change efforts are covered by the Charter. Ecojustice supported the seven young people who brought this case.
The case is now back in lower district courts, but experts say the ruling will shock some legal and policy communities and has serious consequences for governments scaling back efforts to tackle climate change. states that it is possible.
“This decision is a game-changer,” said Stewart Elsey, an expert in environmental and natural resources law at the University of Ottawa. “This is the strongest decision in Canadian history regarding our constitutional obligation to address climate change.”
Let’s take a closer look at this ruling and how it could affect future climate change litigation.
what the court said
On Thursday, Ontario Court of Appeal decision A lower court has admitted it made an error in handling a youth-led constitutional challenge to Ontario’s climate change goals.
in unanimous decisionThree judges on the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to reconsider the case. It also concluded that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to this case.
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether Ontario had breached the Charter.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada’s supreme law, the Canadian Constitution. Article 7 of the Charter affirms the right to “life, liberty and security of the person”.
The young people who filed the lawsuit argued that the Ontario government’s response to climate change was causing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions to reach dangerously high levels, in violation of Article 7.
In particular, he took issue with emissions targets set when Premier Doug Ford first took office.
The Ford government abolished Ontario’s cap-and-trade system and replaced its emissions reduction target of 37 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 with a new target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels.
The judges noted that, based on irrefutable expert evidence, this was a weaker goal and fell short of what international science says is needed.
These emissions harm current and future generations of Canadians and ensure that laws and government policies are not based on age or other criteria (such as race, national or ethnic origin, skin color, or complexion). The young people argued that this violates section 15 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination against Canadians. religion, gender, mental or physical disability).
The Court of Appeal judges concluded that by enacting climate legislation, Ontario “has an obligation to develop Charter-compliant plans and targets.”
Emmett McFarlane, a constitutional law expert and political science professor at the University of Waterloo, said the ruling “basically gives plaintiffs a second blow at the trial level.”
Although the ruling is not a complete victory, it “overturns the application judge’s initial dismissal of the claims and breathes new life into the case for the claimants,” he said in an email.
why is it such a big problem
Although the case is far from resolved in Ontario, several experts told CBC News the Court of Appeal’s decision could have implications for legal issues outside of Ontario.
Sébastien Jodoin, an associate professor at McGill University’s law school, said it could have implications for other states and potential challenges at the federal level.
“This decision opens the door to other lawsuits challenging policy decisions that roll back climate goals that the government has set in the past or move away from climate goals that previous administrations may have set.” said Mr. Jodoin. In the past, we have supported climate change litigation challenges.
Jodoin said there would be strong grounds to challenge the next federal government’s reversal of some of the current government’s climate policies if the changes would “set back Canada’s goals and commitments on reducing carbon emissions.” He said it is possible.
The ruling brings Canada in line with rulings by some European courts, where courts have held that “governments have an obligation to reduce carbon emissions in order to fulfill their obligation to respect the human rights of their citizens.” Jodoin said he is more accepting of this idea. .
“Canada has been somewhat behind this global trend.”
While Canadian courts have been reluctant to embark on judicial activism, Elgie said the Ontario court’s decision strikes a necessary balance.
“The court is not telling governments how to address climate change,” he said. Instead, the court will require governments, even under previous administrations, to develop climate goals and plans sufficient to protect lives and avoid dangerous emissions once they commit to tackling climate change. He said that there is a need to do so.
MacFarlane sees it differently. He said the ruling is far from straightforward and questions “whether the Ontario Legislature is at liberty to simply repeal the law and invalidate this case entirely.”
what’s next
Natalie Chalifour, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said she hopes the applicants will ask the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to hold a new hearing as soon as possible.
“There are examples of courts around the world expediting climate cases due to their urgency, so we expect they will try to expedite this case as well,” she said.
He said the Ontario Superior Court of Justice “needs to analyze whether Ontario’s goals and plans violate young people’s rights to life, security and equality.”
Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson said the ruling effectively “put Ontario in a corner.”
“This decision brings Ontario a significant step closer to ensuring that inadequate climate action is resolved,” he said.
A spokesperson for Ontario’s attorney general stressed that “no decision has been made by the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of Ontario’s climate change plan or goals.”
“We are on track to meet our emissions reduction goals and will continue to build on our successes,” Jack Fazzari said in an email.
