Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.
On December 13, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal released a unanimous decision to revive a previously-dismissed youth climate action case and send it to trial.
La Rose v. His Majesty the King was filed in 2019 by 15 youth plaintiffs from seven Canadian provinces and one territory. The plaintiffs sought to hold Canada’s federal government accountable for its failure to appropriately address climate change, and for the resulting harm to young people.
One year later, a Federal Court struck the suit, regarding its claims as outside court jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed, and last week federal appellate court judges agreed to allow part of the claim to proceed.
In their claim, the plaintiffs describe the personal harm they have suffered as a result of climate change, including asthma, anxiety, Lyme disease, extreme weather events, and loss of traditionally important food sources. They allege that the Canadian government’s failure to effectively address climate change has therefore infringed their s. 7 and s. 15 Charter rights, as well as the rights “of all children and youth now and in the future.”
In terms of relief sought, the plaintiffs want the Canadian government to establish a climate recovery plan and undertake comprehensive accounting of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re also seeking a declaration that the government breached, and continues to breach, its obligation to preserve public trust resources such as air, water, and permafrost.
In the government’s initial response, it acknowledged that climate change is “real, measurable, and documented” and that “present generations must take responsibility for reducing the repercussions of climate change for the benefit of all future generations.” However, the government alleged that “the Plaintiffs’ claims fall well outside the realm of permissible review by the courts,” and that “the impacts of climate change […] are fundamentally global, and are not correlated to the location of the GHG emission or source.”
In the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling, the court determined that the plaintiffs deserve a trial to adjudicate whether their s. 7 Charter rights were infringed, but the argument regarding s. 15 rights will not proceed.
Justice Rennie wrote in the judgment that “the argument is novel, but it is not doomed to fail. Courts should be cautious in striking claims at an early stage […] the law is not static and unchanging—actions that were deemed hopeless yesterday may succeed tomorrow.”
The plaintiffs’ action is supported by The David Suzuki Foundation, Our Children’s Trust, and the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation. In a press release from the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the youth plaintiffs, Zoe G.W., said about the recent decision that “It’s great news that the Canadian government has to hear our lawsuit. Children shouldn’t need to sue the government to protect ourselves from climate change. It’s time for Canada to stop fighting us in court and start fighting climate change.”
Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with environment and climate policy matters.