Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On April 14th, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the climate action case Mathur v. Ontario.

Commenced in 2019 by seven young climate activists, aged 15 to 27, the lawsuit alleged that Ontario’s lacklustre 2018 climate plan, adopted following Doug Ford’s election to premier, violates the Charter rights of today’s youth and future generations.

Specifically, the youth plaintiffs alleged that the 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (one component of the Ford government’s then-new climate plan) weakened emission reduction policies established by Ontario’s previous government. This action substantially increased the likelihood that Ontario’s youth and future generations will suffer serious harm from the projected rise in global temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change. The harm anticipated encompasses increases in heat-related deaths, infectious disease, food insecurity crises, and large-scale population displacements.

Though the case had already survived two earlier attempts at summary dismissal, in this month’s ruling, Justice Vermette held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any violations of Charter rights “based on the current state of the law,” and dismissed the case accordingly.

The pivotal question for the court was whether emission policies established by the 2018 Act imposed “an increased risk of death, directly or indirectly” or negatively impacted the plaintiffs’ security of the person. Justice Vermette found that a failure to set more ambitious climate goals would only be a violation of Charter rights if the Charter imposed positive law obligations upon the government to ensure these rights (i.e., required the government to act in a certain manner). Justice Vermette concluded that the law does not; it merely restrains the government from infringing upon rights.

Despite a disappointing result for the plaintiffs, the court’s recognition of the plaintiffs’ Charter complaints as justiciable – that is, as within the scope of matters the court can determine – is a promising sign for future Charter-based climate litigation. As Ecojustice (which represented the plaintiffs) noted, justiciability “has been a significant obstacle” for similar cases brought before Mathur (including the La Rose case we discussed here). 

Also encouraging, from the plaintiffs’ perspective, is Justice Vermette’s harsh indictment of the provincial government’s actions:

“I find that Ontario’s decision to limit its efforts to an objective that falls severely short of the scientific consensus as to what is required is sufficiently connected to the prejudice that will be suffered by the Applicants and Ontarians should global warming exceed 1.5°C. By not taking steps to reduce [greenhouse gases] in the province further, Ontario is contributing to an increase in the risk of death and in the risks faced by the Applicants and others with respect to the security of the person.”

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the ruling.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with environment or climate policy matters.