Canada's top court to decide whether to hear youth-led climate case
Canada's highest court is set to decide today whether it will hear arguments in a trailblazing climate change lawsuit that could clarify whether governments are constitutionally required to tackle planet-warming emissions.
The decision could set the stage before the Supreme Court of Canada in a case where seven young people have challenged Ontario's weakened climate target.
The group has argued the revised target commits the province to dangerously high greenhouse gas levels, in a way that jeopardizes their right to life and forces them to bear the brunt of future climate impacts.
The case is the first in Canada where a court, in a full hearing, considered whether a government climate plan could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ontario asked the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on the case, saying it raises questions of national importance about whether governments are constitutionally required to fight climate change.
The case began in 2019, when 12-year-old Sophia Mathur and six other young people joined together to challenge Ontario's watered-down emissions target.
Legal experts say the case could fundamentally alter how governments are held to account on climate change.
Before this case, courts had dismissed citizen-led Charter challenges of climate targets on preliminary grounds, often because they found them to be too broad or too political.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
3 days ago
- Montreal Gazette
UN should be next stop if Supreme Court won't rein in Quebec's use of notwithstanding: lawyer
Quebec Politics By A prominent human-rights lawyer says the anglophone community should take its case to the United Nations if the Supreme Court of Canada does not step in and curtail Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause in Bill 96 and other laws. Pearl Eliadis said a complaint could be filed with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which oversees compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and is bound by its provisions. 'Governments in Canada, on the whole, have paid attention to decisions and views from the Human Rights Committee because we are part of an international order,' Eliadis said Wednesday at a public forum about the Constitution's notwithstanding clause. The step should be taken if Canada's top court decides that the province's use of the clause cannot be overturned because the court's hands are tied, said Eliadis, who teaches at McGill University's faculty of law. By triggering the clause, governments can override some fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After five years, the override expires unless the government renews the use of the clause. Premier François Legault's Coalition Avenir Québec government preemptively invoked the clause to shield Bill 21, a law that bans the wearing of hijabs and other religious symbols by government workers, and Bill 96, which toughened the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101. Eliadis is a vocal critic of both laws. 'The international framework for human rights is very clear,' Eliadis said. 'Even in the event of a public emergency, the only thing you cannot derogate from are the equality and non-discrimination rights — and those are precisely the ones that are being violated by laws like Bill 96, Bill 21 and others.' She added: 'I think we need to be paying attention to the international context, understanding that Canada holds itself out as a leader internationally, as a country that cares about international law.' The public forum was organized by the Task Force on Linguistic Policy. The group says it has raised $200,000 from the public to finance its constitutional challenge to Bill 96, which had a wide-ranging impact, including on CEGEP enrolment, business operations, the court system, and access to government services in English. When the Constitution was patriated in 1982, the notwithstanding clause was included at the insistence of provincial premiers concerned the charter would put too much power in the hands of judges. 'This was a political deal that expressly was intended to tie the hands of the courts,' Eliadis said. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is not its role to require legislators to justify their invocation of the clause. Eliadis said the top court has essentially held that the clause is a 'magical incantation, you wave this around, you hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete and sections of the Charter — freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of association (and other freedoms) — all disappear.' In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Bill 21. That followed a 2024 Quebec Court of Appeal ruling upholding the law. The court rejected challenges from several groups, including the English Montreal School Board, the Fédération autonome de l'enseignement teachers' union and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. During a panel discussion following Eliadis's address, Eric Maldoff, a lawyer and former president of the anglophone rights group Alliance Quebec, said the notwithstanding clause was supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances. Instead, provinces, including Quebec, have tried to 'normalize' its use, he said. 'We've got a rule of law problem here, and the notwithstanding clause in itself is an affront to the rule of law,' Maldoff said. 'It's the government being able to say with the stroke of a pen: your rights don't exist, we can do whatever we want.' Maldoff said those challenging the clause must persuade 'a courageous court that the clause's preemptive use is inappropriate.' Failing that, courts should be urged to declare that they will consider cases where the clause has been invoked, 'with a view to making a declaration on what rights have been abrogated and in what way.' This would ensure that 'when it comes up for renewal, we're not going to have a debate about whether it affects rights. That will already be established.' Joe Ortona, a lawyer who is chair of the EMSB, said the board has a duty to fight Bill 21. The law is 'contrary to all of our values of tolerance, of acceptance, of multiculturalism, and just basic decency, of treating people with dignity and respect, and was not at all the kind of example that we wanted to set for our children,' he said. 'It's a law that we fundamentally oppose, not only on moral grounds, but on constitutional grounds.' The EMSB is fighting the law based on two sections of the charter that cannot be overridden by the notwithstanding clause. One pertains to minority language educational rights, the other to gender equality.
Calgary Herald
4 days ago
- Calgary Herald
Fairy Tales: Filmmaker revisits Delwin Vriend case in new documentary
There is anger in Darrin Hagen's voice when he talks about the Delwin Vriend case in Alberta. Article content The landmark decision, which came down from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 and extended human-rights protections to queer Albertans, was certainly groundbreaking. Hagen calls it 'one of those dominoes' that led to change that impacted LGBTQ+ rights in Alberta, Canada and even the world. When the Alberta government was forced by the courts to treat queer people equally, it eventually lead to progress in other areas such as same-sex marriage and queer adoptions. Article content Article content The story about how Vriend's case, which began after he was fired in 1991 from his job as a laboratory instructor at King's College for being gay, went all the way to the Supreme Court is inspiring, of course. But it is also infuriating, Hagen says. The hostility of the Alberta government, which continued to fight even after realizing it had no legal standing to do so, is a major part of the story and one that seems particularly timely today as ugly divisions re-emerge in the province and around the world regarding LGBTQ+ rights. Article content Article content 'The government kept paying (lawyers) to push this thing forward even though they knew that they would lose,' says Hagen. 'I think that is something we all need to recognize about the provincial government that we lived through. They used our money to fight our rights. I'm a taxpayer, right? It's my money, and they are using my money to fund a battle to withhold me from full participation in Alberta society. Every queer in Alberta should be (expletive) pissed off about that.' 'You can tell I'm not neutral about this,' he adds. Article content Hagen, an award-winning playwright, drag performer and queer historian, spent years studying the case as director of the documentary Pride vs. Prejudice: The Delwin Vriend Story. He was aware of the case as it was happening. Everybody in the community was, even if they were watching from afar. One of the biggest misconceptions of the case was that it pitted Vriend and his supporters against King's College. The college wasn't being sued; Alberta was. After being fired, Vriend attempted to file a discrimination complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission but was told sexual orientation was not protected under the Human Rights Code in Alberta. So the case was not against the college, but the Government of Alberta and its Human Rights Commission. The Alberta government lost. That would have been the end of it had the Alberta government not appealed, which is how the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government had used queer rights and queer equality as a wedge issue, a 'divisive tool in their arsenal,' Hagen says. 'So this was about taking that tool away from them.
Toronto Star
6 days ago
- Toronto Star
Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery
HALIFAX - A Mi'kmaq band has dropped a legal case alleging Ottawa was violating its treaty rights in the lobster fishery, after hopes were raised of a historic deal. Last December, the lawyer for Sipekne'katik First Nation told Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Keith that discussions with Ottawa to settle the matter were 'moving to a conclusion.' Keith gave the parties until June 16 to finish the mediation, but said at that point the case would carry on before the courts. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW However, a letter to the courts sent June 6 by Sipekne'katik's lawyer Nathan Sutherland dropped the case without any further explanation. Neither side has provided an update on the status of negotiations for a new agreement. Chief Michelle Glasgow, the leader of the Indigenous community about 70 kilometres north of Halifax, didn't reply to a request for comment. Band members had argued their 'moderate livelihood' lobster harvest outside of the regular season is permitted by a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision, while non-Indigenous commercial fishers have contended it threatens stocks and fails to recognize how the courts have maintained Ottawa's right to regulate. The original lawsuit was launched by the band in 2021, seeking a declaration that current federal regulations infringe on its treaty right to fish. The Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a group that represents commercial fishers, said in a news release Monday that the discontinuing of the case is a 'major victory' for its members. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'It is an acknowledgement by Chief (Michelle) Glasgow and Sipekne'katik First Nation that the rights to the illegal out-of-season lobster fishing ... are not a treaty protected right, it is poaching, plain and simple', said Colin Sproul, president of the group. Meanwhile, the group said they will be pursuing separate legal action, filed in August 2024, asking the provincial Supreme Court to determine the rules and limits to be applied to Sipekne'katik First Nation's fishery under the Marshall decision. The Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Marshall decision said the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy bands in Eastern Canada could hunt, fish and gather to earn a 'moderate livelihood,' though the court followed up with a clarification saying the treaty right was subject to federal regulation to ensure conservation. In September 2020, the Sipekne'katik First Nation issued five lobster licences to its members, saying they could trap and sell their catch outside the federally regulated season. In the months that followed there were confrontations on the water, rowdy protests and riots at two lobster pounds, one of which was razed by arson. According to a letter the band's lawyers sent to the court last December, seven federal officials — including the regional director of the Fisheries Department — attended weekly mediation talks in the legal case, with 10 representatives of the First Nation participating. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'The progress made to date and moving forward from our 25 years of impasse is immeasurable,' wrote Ronald Pink, the lawyer at the time, in the 2024 letter to the judge. The talks were also described by lawyers last December as being extensive, with former senator Dan Christmas and retired federal mediator Barney Dobbin guiding discussions. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2025.
