Limits of Climate Change Suits Against the Government: Mathur v. Ontario Decision
The Superior Court of Justice has now released its decision in Mathur v. Ontario, a case we wrote about earlier this year and which is now a further example of an unsuccessful claim against a government in respect of climate change. The lawsuit involved an application brought by seven Ontario youth claiming, among other things, that Ontario’s legislated targets and plans for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not stringent enough to combat climate change and, therefore, infringed their constitutional Charter rights. Although the Court had sympathy for many of the applicants’ arguments and held that most of the issues raised by the applicants were justiciable by the Court, it nevertheless dismissed the application as it found no Charter violations.
Background
The application concerned provincial legislation passed in 2016 that implemented a cap and trade program for GHG emissions, and subsequent legislation, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (CTCA) passed by the newly elected provincial government that repealed the 2016 legislation and set out a plan to meet a more lenient target for GHG emission reductions. In effect, the lawsuit sought to force the government to set more stringent targets for GHG emissions. To support their lawsuit, the applicants tendered expert evidence regarding the impacts of climate change and what they alleged was Canada’s and Ontario’s “fair share” of future carbon emissions.
Justiciable
With respect to allegations that the government’s actions were unconstitutional, the Court held that the applicants had challenged specific state action and legislation (i.e. the CTCA and the subsequent lower GHG targets set by the government) and, therefore, the issues raised regarding Charter violations were justiciable – i.e., that the issues were suitable for judicial determination.
The only issue the Court did not find justiciable was the applicants’ argument that the Court should determine Canada and Ontario’s “fair share” of future worldwide carbon emissions. The Court noted there is more than one way to determine carbon budgets and allocation, and “this issue does not have a sufficient legal component to allow this Court to choose among competing approaches.”
Charter Claims
The Court addressed various Charter arguments, primarily related to whether there were violations of Sections 7 and 15. Notable aspects of the decision were as follows.
The Court quickly rejected the applicants’ argument that the government’s action to repeal the cap and trade program and enact the subsequent CTCA was unconstitutional. It concluded that a “mere change in the law cannot be the basis for a Charter violation”.
The applicants alleged that the CTCA violated section 7 of the Charter, i.e., their 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. The Court characterized the applicants’ claims as alleging the government was not doing enough to protect their right to life, liberty and security of the person, but the Court ultimately held that the applicants had not demonstrated any deprivation was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. The Court’s analysis about causation was especially notable, as the Court rejected the government’s argument that there was no causal connection between the government’s target for reducing GHC and mitigating the effect of climate change.
The Court found that by not taking steps to reduce GHG emissions in Ontario further, the Ontario government was contributing to an increase in the risk of death, and that while Ontario’s contributions to global warming “may be numerically small, it is real, measurable and not speculative.” The Court also rejected that a so-called “societal preservation principle” was a principle of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. It concluded that while “societal preservation may be an important public policy and/or state interest, it is not a normative legal principle or a basic tenet of our legal system.”
The applicants also alleged that the CTCA violated section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Their argument was based largely on evidence that climate change would disproportionately impact them, as younger people who would be exposed to the worsening effects of climate change over time. The Court stated that section 15 “does not impose a positive obligation on the state to remedy social inequalities or enact remedial obligation...” and held that the applicants had not established a violation of section 15 of the Charter.
Closing Considerations
To date, litigants in Canada have not been successful in challenging alleged government action or inaction on climate change-related matters. Nevertheless, litigants continue to look for avenues to impose responsibility for climate change and to require governments to take more robust actions to mitigate GHG emissions. The applicants have already announced they will appeal the Court’s decision. Goodmans will be watching with interest as the case moves through to an appeal.
For more information concerning climate change or how it may impact businesses, please contact any member of our Dispute Resolution or Environmental groups.
Expertise
Authors
Insights
-
Intellectual Property
Canadian Intellectual Property Office Increases Fees Effective January 1, 2024
As of January 1, 2024, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) will be increasing most of its fees by 25%. Filing fees, renewal fees, opposition filing fees, as well as fees for initiating… -
Dispute Resolution
The Courtroom Climate, Best Lawyers
In Best Lawyers’ recent 2023 Business Edition, Peter Kolla explores justiciability, and other limitations Canadian Courts face when trying climate change cases. Excerpt from "The Climate… -
Dispute Resolution
Downstream GHG Emissions and Sierra Club Canada Foundation v Canada (Environment and Climate Change)
The Federal Court’s recent decision in Sierra Club Canada Foundation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) highlights the continuing focus in Canada on climate change litigation. The case… -
Dispute Resolution
Limits of Climate Change Suits Against the Government: Mathur v. Ontario Decision
The Superior Court of Justice has now released its decision in Mathur v. Ontario, a case we wrote about earlier this year and which is now a further example of an unsuccessful claim against a… -
Dispute Resolution
Force Majeure and COVID-19 – Appeal Decision in Niagara Falls Shopping Centre Inc. v. LAF Canada Company
Although it has been three years since the COVID-19 pandemic hit Canada with full force in March 2020, the courts continue to address the fallout. In November 2022, we published a case update about a… -
Crisis Management and Urgent Proceedings
Market Intelligence Crisis Management 2023 - Canada Chapter
Mark Dunn and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of Market Intelligence Crisis Management 2023. Market Intelligence offers readers a highly accessible take on the crucial issues of the…
Featured Work
-
Construction and Infrastructure
HB Construction Co. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. et al
Goodmans LLP acted for HB Construction Co. in respect of the construction of a mine in New Brunswick. The litigation relates to a claim in respect of the installation of mechanical and electrical… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
McCain Capital Partners Acquisition of Forest City Fire Protection
Goodmans LLP acted for McCain Capital Partners in connection with its acquisition of Forest City Fire Protection. Forest City Fire Protection will now unite with Classic Fire Protection (another… -
Restructuring
Cirque du Soleil Restructuring
Goodmans LLP acted for the Ad Hoc Committee of Lenders of Cirque du Soleil Entertainment Group in connection with the successful closing of a sale transaction and its emergence from creditor… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Harvest One Completes Acquisition of Delvira
Goodmans LLP represented Delivra Corp. in connection with its arrangement transaction with Harvest One Cannabis Inc., pursuant to which Harvest One acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Newmont and Goldcorp Combine to Create World's Leading Gold Company
Goodmans LLP acted for Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) (Newmont or the Company) in connection with its agreement to acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Goldcorp Inc. (NYSE: GG, TSX… -
Restructuring
Algoma Steel Completes Restructuring Transaction and Emerges from CCAA Protection
Algoma sought and obtained CCAA protection on November 9, 2015 and carried out a sale and investment solicitation process to identify sale and/or investment opportunities in respect of its business…
News & Events
-
Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Partners Recognized in the Lexpert Special Edition: Litigation 2023
We are delighted to announce the Lexpert Special Edition: Litigation 2023 once again features Goodmans partners among Canada's experts in litigation.Congratulations to our 13 featured… -
Dispute Resolution
David Conklin quoted in "High bar for class actions", Lexpert
In an article published by Lexpert, David Conklin shares his insight in "High bar for class actions". “I hate to say this – it started with me 10 years ago – but defence counsel… -
Banking and Financial Services
Who's Who Legal Continues to Recognize Goodmans in the Canada 2023 Guide
We are pleased to share Goodmans lawyers have been recognized across Who's Who Legal's National Guide: Canada 2023. WWL National Guides identify national or regional leaders in a sector, industry…