FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Toronto, ON (traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnaabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat peoples) – The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) welcomes the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s landmark decision in Mathur et al. v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario. By voluntarily assuming a statutory obligation to combat climate change and to produce a plan and target for that purpose, the court held that Ontario government was obligated to do so in a manner that was constitutionally compliant. In other words, the impacts of the government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target must be consistent with the Charter rights of youth.
This case was brought by seven young Ontarians who argue that Ontario’s 2030 GHG reduction targets are too weak and are based on inaccurate emission data. They claim that the resulting impacts of climate change violate youth Charter rights under s. 7, life, liberty and security of the person, and s. 15, equality rights. The Ontario Superior Court interpreted the claims as “freestanding positive obligations” and found that there was no violation of the Charter. While the youth must now still await a new hearing before a final determination of their claims, today, the Court of Appeal corrected the application judge’s flawed analysis and ordered that the matter be returned for a new hearing.
The BCCLA intervened in this case to counter the application judge’s approach, arguing that challenges brought under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter should not be dismissed simply because they could be characterized as raising what has been called a “positive right.” Prematurely dismissing a claim because it raises a “positive right” without assessing whether that right is protected by the Charter under the established contextual frameworks turns the established analysis of Charter claims on its head, undermines existing Supreme Court of Canada case law, and risks immunizing large areas of government action from any Charter review.
Teagan Markin, pro bono counsel for the BCCLA, says:
“Today’s decision sends a clear message—when the state legislates, it must do so in a constitutionally compliant manner. A constitutional challenge to government action should remain focused on whether the effects of that action are consistent with the Charter, and not get side-tracked by abstractions around whether there is a “positive right” to government action in the first place. The Court’s decision clears the way for that work to be done in this case and will be an important precedent for future cases involving government regulation in areas closely connected to fundamental rights such as health care, social services and climate policy.”
Ga Grant, Staff Counsel for the BCCLA, says:
“This landmark decision is a huge step forward for holding our governments accountable to their commitments. This decision has the potential to prevent governments from shielding their violations of our constitutional rights. Climate justice includes assessing the government’s actions on climate change with the same principles as any other Charter challenge. Accountability means that the government must not violate Canadians’ rights to equality, life, liberty, and security of the person, period.”
The BCCLA is represented by Teagan Markin and Nadia Effendi of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
