Ontario's highest court has reignited hopes for climate action by ordering a fresh hearing on a groundbreaking case led by young activists challenging the provincial government's emission targets. On October 17, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal made the decision, which many are calling a significant win for the youth-led movement advocating for stronger environmental policies.
The case, dubbed Mathur v. Ontario, centers around the arguments put forth by 17-year-old Sophia Mathur and her peers, who assert their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are compromised by the Ontario government’s climate policies. These young Canadians contend the emissions target set by Premier Doug Ford's government is insufficient to adequately combat the climate crisis they will inherit.
The recent ruling sends the case back to the lower courts for re-evaluation, allowing the arguments of the youth plaintiffs to be examined under what the Appeal Court described as the "correct analytical lens." This ruling also highlights weaknesses found in the previous lower court's analysis.
The original emissions target, established after the scrapping of Ontario's cap-and-trade system, was set at 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Critics argue this figure is not only too lenient but will enable emissions approximated to be 30 megatonnes higher annually, contributing to the climate emergency.
During the virtual press conference following the ruling, Mathur expressed optimism about the outcome. "I believe our case can genuinely influence real climate action and advocate for our safer future," she stated emphatically, reminding officials about their responsibilities toward younger generations. Her sentiment echoes the aspirations of many youth activists across the province who feel sidelined by current government policies.
The youth group had previously presented strong evidence indicating the revised targets would allow for the emissions equivalent to the annual output of about seven million cars by 2030. They noted the need for stricter regulations, citing the court's acknowledgment of the disproportionate risk climate change poses to Indigenous youth and the potential increase in life-threatening events like forest fires and floods.
Last year, the lower court recognized the discrepancy between the province's targets and global climate action necessities but did not deem them unconstitutional. The judge concluded the plaintiffs were attempting to impose what was described as a "freestanding" obligation on the government to tackle climate change more vigorously.
The Appeal Court challenged this notion, emphasizing Ontario's prior legislative commitment to address climate concerns and indicating the necessity for the case to be re-examined for potential Charter violations. The ruling pointedly asked whether the initial judge should have considered this commitment’s impact on rights.
Ontario's attorney general welcomed the court's decision, with spokesman Jack Fazzari stating the province is dedicated to meeting its emissions targets and enhancing environmental initiatives through investments. He insisted Ontario remains committed to being at the forefront of emissions reduction efforts.
This decision resonates beyond Ontario, reflecting wider global trends where youth-led climate initiatives are increasingly taking legal action against governments failing to act decisively on climate change. Similar cases are currently before courts worldwide, where judges have been asked to rule on the obligations governments hold toward their citizens amid the climate crisis.
For example, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled back in 2019 affirming the government’s duty to protect citizens from climate change, mandatorily ordering the government to reduce emissions. The Ontario ruling not only echoes this sentiment but could set the stage for similar accountability measures here.
Legal experts have weighed in on the latest decision, with scholars like Stepan Wood from the University of British Columbia calling the ruling a substantial foundation for the youth’s upcoming court battle. He noted, “This unanimous decision is a major victory for Canadian children and youth who are seeking to hold governments accountable.”
Meanwhile, another youth-led Charter case challenging the federal government's overall climate policy is watching the developments closely as it progresses through the courts. Catherine Boies Parker, the lawyer representing the youth plaintiffs for the federal case, remarked, “Today’s decision is significant because it establishes the precedent needed to hold governments accountable for their roles in climate harm.”
The renewed hearing injected fresh energy and urgency to the climate conversation within Ontario, reflecting the demands of young people who are not afraid to challenge those in power. With the future of their environment at stake, these activists are determined their voices will be heard as they push for more aggressive climate actions and accountability from their government.
Indeed, today's ruling sets the scene for what could be transformative legal battles, impacting how climate policies may evolve and how governments approach their responsibilities toward future generations.
