The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on Thursday rejected Ontario’s request for an appeal on a landmark case concerning Canada’s climate policy.
The SCC’s refusal to hear the appeal was celebrated by activist groups, as it affirms the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling that the province’s climate policy is subject to the constitution, and paves the way for a final decision in the case. Any law deemed unconstitutional is unenforceable, and if the plaintiffs succeed the government will thus be forced to revise its climate policy.
The case, Mathur v. Ontario, is the latest in a global trend of youth-led climate litigation, with seven youth bringing a constitutional challenge to the Ontario government’s inaction towards climate change. The plaintiffs argued that when the Ontario government used Section 16 of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (CTCA) to modify the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 (Climate Change Act) to be far less demanding, they effectively committed the province to dangerous and arbitrary levels of CO2 emissions. They argued this disproportionately harms Canadian youth and indigenous communities, forcing them to bear the brunt of the harms of climate change and thus violating their rights under Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs are seeking “an order declaring their Charter rights have been violated and requiring Ontario to set a science-based emissions reduction target and to revise its climate change plan in accordance with international standards.”
This case is the first Charter-challenge involving the climate in Canada, but other countries have seen similar litigation. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland saw a group of elderly plaintiffs successfully sue the Swiss government at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for failing to adequately address climate change and violating Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case built upon the previously established precedent in Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, which held that state inaction towards climate change could amount to a violation of human rights. Both these cases saw enormous outpourings of public support for the plaintiffs. The UN unanimously passed Resolution 77/276 in 2023, which requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding states’ legal obligations regarding climate change. The result is expected later this year.
Mathur v. Ontario will return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where it was previously rejected before being revived on appeal. This upcoming decision will be final and has the potential to be a significant breakthrough in Canadian climate litigation.
