Seven young people from Ontario have not given up their fight to hold the province to account for what the group feels is a violation of their charter rights.
In the lawsuit launched in November 2019 with the support of environmental law charity Ecojustice, Sophia Mathur of Sudbury and six other young Ontario residents argued the province has significantly weakened its 2030 climate target, essentially moving backwards on climate action at a time when science says that all governments must do more, arguing this risks the future lives and health of Ontario residents, which breaches charter rights.
The seven young people are Sophia Mathur, Zoe Keary-Matzner, Shaelyn Wabegijig, Shelby Gagnon, Alex Neufeldt, Madison Dyck and Beze Grey. Learn more about them here.
The case was dismissed by an Ontario court in 2023, but then a 2024 Court of Appeals ruling ordered a new hearing in the case.
Late last year, Ontario asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires Canadian governments to combat climate change.
Then, in late January, the Ecojustice and the group of young people announced they were cross-appealing Ontario’s appeal for leave to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
Supported by lawyers from Ecojustice and Stockwoods LLP, the youth want “their case to be heard in the Supreme Court in its entirety, and decided with urgency,” Ecojustice said in a news release.
“In the cross appeal submitted yesterday, the applicants of the Mathur et. al case asked Canada’s top court to take swift and decisive action by either sending the case to an immediate hearing at the Lower Court or, if leave is granted, that the Supreme Court hear all aspects of this case and come to a final, fulsome resolution,” the firm said.
“If granted leave, this would mark the first time a climate case based on Charter rights is being decided at the Supreme Court of Canada, which could have far-reaching implications for how governments respond to climate change.”
Recent rulings
In April 2023, Superior Court Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette dismissed the suit against Ontario, but had some strong words for the government.
Vermette found Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions target was not unconstitutional and she did not order the government to set a new science-based target, but did find the government’s move to weaken targets increased the risk of death for people, which formed part of the young people’s argument.
"By not taking steps to reduce GHG (greenhouse gasses) in the province further, Ontario is contributing to an increase in the risk of death and in the risks faced by the Applicants and others," Vermette wrote in the decision.
Justice Vermette agreed with the applicants on several key points, including that the case is justiciable, meaning that Canadian courts can hear and decide Charter-based cases that challenge specific legislation or state action – such as climate targets and plans.
The young people appealed the dismissal and in October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled in their favour, setting aside the April 2024 ruling dismissing the case and ordered a hearing wherein “the issues raised on the application must be considered afresh and through the correct analytical lens.”
The appeals court disagreed with the previous court’s ruling that the young activists' demand that climate targets should conform to scientific standards was imprecise, and also disagreed with the government’s argument that allowing the suit to go ahead effectively lets the courts set policy rather than government.
“We disagree,” with the provincial government’s argument, the Court of Appeals judges said.
First, the court said Ontario’s argument that a win for the activists would see courts setting policy instead of government is incorrect. A declaratory order from the court tells the government to correct a Charter violation without telling the government precisely how to achieve that goal, so the court is not setting the policy.
Second on the issue of vague scientific standards, the court pointed to the “clear international standards based on accepted scientific consensus that can inform what a constitutionally compliant (emissions) Target and (climate) Plan should look like. The international standards and the scientific evidence produced by the parties on the application clearly indicate how acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions are measured and calculated.”
The case has been ongoing for nearly six years now, but one of the applicants said she is not tired of fighting.
“I was twelve years old when we took the Ontario government to court for the first time. Now, I’m in my first year of university,” said Zoe Keary-Matzner in the release. “We are counting on a sense of urgency from the courts that meets the urgency of the climate emergency we’re in.”
Ecojustice said the case might have begun as a legal challenge but it made history by setting legal precedents, including by being the first climate charter case to ever be heard and ruled on its merits.
“This case has spanned several years, and multiple levels of court. What matters most to our clients is that their case is heard with urgency and receives a fulsome resolution,” said Ecojustice Climate Director and lawyer Fraser Thomson, in the release. “With our environment, our health, our wallets, and our futures at stake, nothing needs our attention — and the urgency of the courts — more than climate change.”