The youths allege the emissions reduction goals discriminate against them based on age
Seven youths can pursue their claim that the Ontario government violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it set emissions reduction goals that fell short of international standards, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.
In the unanimous decision in Mathur v. Ontario, the OCA declined to decide the youths' application but sent the case back to a lower court for a new hearing.
“While we clarify in these reasons the question that must be determined at a new hearing, we are careful not to decide that question or otherwise limit the analysis to be undertaken,” Justice Lois Roberts wrote for the court.
Roberts added, “Given the seriousness of these matters, the additional issues raised, and the potential need for further evidence, it would not be in the interests of justice nor practically feasible for this court to take on the role of finder of fact and conduct the required analysis.”
Justices Steve Coroza and Sally Gomery concurred.
At a press conference on Thursday, Nader Hasan, a Stockwoods LLP partner and one of the youths’ lawyers, said they aim to bring the case back to the trial courts “as quickly as possible.
“The evidence is jarring. It's alarming. It speaks to a catastrophic climate crisis that's only getting worse,” Hasan said.
“We're asking to go back to the trial court immediately and for the trial court to grant the remedy ordering Ontario to bring its greenhouse gas emissions targets in line, at a minimum, with the Paris standards and in line with best practices and an emissions target that sets us not on a course for climate disaster.”
Jack Fazzari, press secretary for the Attorney General of Ontario, told Law Times, "Ontario is a leader in tackling climate change, with 86 percent of Canada’s total emissions reductions attributed to our province's efforts. We are on track to meet emissions reduction targets and will continue to build on our success by ensuring Ontario remains a global leader.”
Fazzari adds, “No decision from the court of appeal was made regarding the constitutionality of Ontario’s climate change plan or target. The matter was sent back to the superior court for a new hearing.”
In 2018, the Ontario legislature passed the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, which required the provincial government to set new emissions reduction targets.
The provincial government's subsequently set target called for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 – a much smaller reduction target than that prescribed under another Ontario climate change law that has since been repealed. The target also fell short of international standards set according to scientific consensus.
In their complaint, the youths – several of whom are Indigenous – alleged the target was unconstitutional and violated their rights to life, liberty and security under the Charter. The litigants also alleged the target breached their Charter rights to be free from discrimination based on their age since it forced them to bear the brunt of climate change.
An application judge dismissed their case, ruling that the youths’ claim would require the court to recognize that they had positive rights – i.e., entitlements that should be guaranteed through government action. The judge concluded that the Charter did not require Ontario to take steps to combat climate change, so the government’s emissions reduction target did not breach the youths’ Charter rights.
However, the OCA disagreed, ruling that the case was not about positive rights. The youths’ application did not try to impose new obligations on Ontario to combat climate change; instead, the provincial government “voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change,” Roberts wrote.
The lower court should have asked “whether the execution of that voluntarily imposed statutory obligation was Charter compliant,” Robert said.
Alan Andrews, a climate director with Ecojustice, whose lawyers also represented the youths, noted to Law Times that other provinces, including British Columbia, have enacted laws that set climate targets.
“As we see climate policy coming under pressure on all fronts, both provincially and federally, this case should serve as a warning shot to governments who seek to backslide on climate action,” Andrews says.
