Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to life, liberty, and security of person — Right to equality —Discrimination based on age — Courts — Jurisdiction — Justiciability — Whether Ontario’s greenhouse gas emission reduction target and enabling legislation infringe respondents’ ss. 7 or 15(1) Charter rights – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that respondents’ claims are justiciable — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 15(1) — Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, S.O. 2018, c. 13, s. 3(1).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2018, Ontario repealed its statutory target for greenhouse gas emission reduction and replaced it with a requirement that the government produce a climate change plan, including a target for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Also in 2018, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) reported that, in order to meet the 2016 Paris Agreement’s benchmarks for fighting climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030. In 2021, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including Canada, endorsed the IPCC’s findings in the Glasgow Climate Pact. To align with the IPCC’s recommendation, Ontario would need to fix its target at a reduction of 52% below 2005 levels by 2030. Ontario published its climate change plan in 2018 and fixed its target at 30% below 2005 GHG emission levels by 2030.

The respondents, a group of young people, sought a declaration that the Target and its enabling legislation violate their rights under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under s. 1.

The application judge held that the claims were justiciable because they concerned legislation and state action. However, she also found that the s. 7 claim was a claim for positive state obligations, and, even assuming that such a claim can succeed, it did not in this case because any infringement of the respondents’ s. 7 rights did not violate a principle of fundamental justice. With respect to the s. 15(1) claim, the application judge held that it was climate change itself, and not the impugned state actions, that caused an adverse impact on the respondents. The application was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the claims were justiciable, but held that the application judge erred by framing the s. 7 claim as one for positive state obligations, and by making inconsistent causation findings with respect to the ss. 7 and 15(1) claims. It remitted the matter to the application judge for redetermination.