The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has declined to hear an appeal from the government of Ontario in a notable case driven by young climate activists challenging the province’s climate policy. The court’s decision affirms the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling that Ontario’s climate measures must comply with constitutional requirements, a verdict celebrated by environmental groups. While the ruling holds particular significance within Ontario, its implications could extend beyond the province, underscoring the increasing judicial attention toward climate change issues (SCC Decision).
The case, Mathur v. Ontario, represents a growing trend of youth-led climate litigation worldwide. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of young individuals, argue that Ontario’s climate policies, particularly the changes made under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, compromise their futures by setting insufficient emission targets. They contend that this approach disproportionately impacts youth and indigenous communities, infringing upon their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Environment Journal).
Internationally, similar legal challenges have gained traction. For example, the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights saw elderly plaintiffs succeed in their claims against the Swiss government’s insufficient climate policies—a decision building on the landmark Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands. Both cases underscored the potential for government inaction on climate change to violate human rights.
As Mathur v. Ontario heads back to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a final determination, the case stands out as the first of its kind in Canada challenging climate policy under the Charter. The final judicial outcome is highly anticipated, as it could significantly shape the legal landscape for climate litigation in Canada.