By Anna Mehler Paperny
TORONTO (Reuters) – The court of appeal in Canada’s most populous province ordered a new hearing on Thursday in a youth-led lawsuit claiming Ontario’s climate plan violates young people’s rights.
The ruling – which refuted the lower court’s finding that the case is not governed by Canada’s Charter – sends the case back to a lower court for another hearing meant to determine whether Ontario’s climate target violates their rights and whether to order the province to devise a new target.
The lawsuit, launched against Ontario by seven people now aged 17 to 29, is the first Canadian human rights-based climate lawsuit to be heard on its merits.
It argued the province’s greenhouse gas emissions target is inadequate and violates the young people’s right to life, liberty and security, along with their right to equality.
The case hinged on government obligations to younger generations as the planet warms, whether Canada’s constitution recognizes such obligations and whether emissions targets have enough practical impact to affect individuals.
Ontario’s environment ministry referred questions to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which did not immediately respond.
The plaintiffs see this as a victory, said Fraser Thomson, climate director and staff lawyer at Ecojustice, legal counsel to the applicants.
“The decision confirms what we’ve known for years: By fueling the climate crisis, politicians are risking the lives and well-being of Ontarians. It also confirms that when governments contribute to the climate crisis and harm their citizens, that governments are subject to the Charter for those actions,” he said.
Emmett Macfarlane, a constitutional expert and politics professor at the University of Waterloo, called it a “confused decision” because of the way it framed positive and negative rights.
Positive rights – the right to a benefit as opposed to freedom from a harm – have not been found to be guaranteed by Canada’s Charter. The trial judge had found the youth were arguing for a positive right; the Court of Appeal disagreed.
“It overturned an initial loss, and it’s giving the appellants a second try at the trial level. So it’s very important for them from their perspective, but they haven’t won anything yet.”
(Reporting by Anna Mehler Paperny; Editing by Aurora Ellis)
Comments