Ontario’s appeal court ordered a new hearing in a youth-led climate lawsuit against Queen’s Park alleging the province’s low targets in reducing emissions are risking the lives and well-being of its residents.
The provincial government's argument that its climate actions were not subject to the Charter was rejected by a Court of Appeal tribunal in an Oct. 17 decision. The ruling ordered the case be returned to the Superior Court of Ontario for a new hearing as “the issues raised on the application must be considered afresh and through the correct analytical lens.”
Zoe Keary-Matzner, a volunteer activist for Fridays for Future Toronto, was 12 when she first became involved with environmental law charity Ecojustice because it was “incredibly important” to her as that is when she was becoming more aware of climate change.
“I think it was the year that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) released their report saying that we had till 2030 to cut our emissions in half and prevent climate catastrophe,” Keary-Matzner, 17, said.
She said it causes so much fear and people shy away when there’s a need to act because they don’t know they can achieve something by it.
“It’s caused by government action, fossil fuel industries, by people, and therefore it can be stopped, and those people have to be held accountable,” Keary-Matzner said.
She said the Ontario government first tried to dismiss the case as they “can’t even use the law in this case” and called it “silly.”
But the court said the case was justifiable and this would be the first of a climate lawsuit of its kind and went forward with the case, Keary-Matzner said.
“The court agreed with all the facts, but they did not agree with our legal arguments, so it was essentially a loss (for the activists),” she said.
Keary-Matzner said the youth activists appealed the decision and the decision ruled their legal arguments are sound, and they are going to send it to lower courts for a final decision.
The appellate court overruled the April 14, 2023, decision by Superior Court of Justice Judge Marie-Andrée Vermette which “indicated that there was insufficient evidence to allow her to address the adverse effects distinction concerning young people’s liberty and future life choices that are being constrained by decisions being made today over which they have no control.”
The tribunal said in its written decision that “this issue may inform the question of whether the Target and Plan are Charter compliant because of the statutory obligation to combat climate change that Ontario has imposed on itself is another question that may require reconsideration at the new hearing.”
Keary-Matzner said this new hearing sets the activists up for success and makes it more likely for them to receive a positive result. The activist said she was in class when she realized they had won.
“We’re trying to get it to go through the courts as fast as possible because, I mean, the legal process takes time, but climate change isn’t really waiting for that,” Keary-Matzner said.
“The sooner we act, the more effective that action will be,” she said.
The Canadian government’s Climate Science 2050 states the climate is warming and will continue to do so in the future, primarily due to human activities. It aims to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 and implement strong adaptation measures, both within Canada and internationally.
Reid Gomme, lawyer at Ecojustice Canada, said the question at issue is when Ontario sets a law and a target that aims for specific reductions.
Gomme said the previous government had "somewhat ambitious climate targets that this government repealed and replaced with one single target" and that is what motivated the activists to take that last recourse to court.
He said Ontario tried to strike down the motion by arguing that the case was seeking non-existent rights under the Charter and that it had no chance of success.
The court decided to go ahead with a full hearing to review all the facts of climate change, how Ontario contributes to it and how it could harm young Ontarians and future generations.
“We look at the science behind what that level of climate inaction, basically arriving at a 30 per cent target which will mean a ‘climate catastrophe,’” he said.
“In fact, it perpetuates this, low kind of targeting and allows a world to exist where you still have a lot of emissions that are being facilitated by such a government policy,” he said.
Gomme said there are emissions from all sorts of sectors and not enough action is being taken.
Ecojustice contends the court’s ruling affirms the Charter applies to Ontario’s climate targets and confirms the government’s actions are harming Ontarians and advanced the law in holding the provincial government to account.
Gomme said Ontario would need to aim for a 52 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 from that 2005 number, not 30 per cent.
“We’re talking about a gap ... where to just be at a minimum level of what the world as a whole needs to do,” he said.
He said the case presented to the court argued people have a right to life and security under Section 7 of the Charter, and have a right to equality in Section 15, both of which would be threatened if emission targets aren't met.
“The important thing that the court did, (that it) hadn’t the first time, was understand if Ontario made this target and this plan that says we are going to address climate change,” Gomme said.
He said what the province is doing and the harm it is going to cause “really boxed Ontario into a corner.”
Gomme said the province was portraying the case as those applicants were owed something automatically. Indeed, the lawyer said they’re trying to get protection from the courts against a government acting in a way that harms them.
.png;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
