Alex Neufeldt, 28, one of seven young people taking the Ontario government to court over its greenhouse gas emission reduction target, poses by Lake Ontario in Toronto, Ontario, Canada June 27, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The appeals court in Canada’s most populous province is set to rule on Thursday whether Ontario’s climate target violates young people’s rights, in a decision that could sway similar cases internationally.

The lawsuit, launched against Ontario by seven people aged 16 to 28 as of this summer, contends the province’s greenhouse-gas-emissions target is inadequate and violates the young people’s rights to life, liberty and security, along with their right to equality. The case hinges 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. In similar lawsuits in Alaska, Hawaii and Montana, as well as in Portugal, young people have sued governments alleging that climate inaction is jeopardizing their futures. In some cases, they have won. Hawaii agreed in June to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045 to settle a lawsuit brought by 13 youth activists.

This is the first Canadian human-rights-based climate lawsuit to be heard on its merits, and it could reverberate in Canada, where it could open the door to fresh litigation, and globally, where it could be cited in other cases, experts told Reuters.

“I’m hoping that will kick the door open for other cases to emerge and build on our successes,” said Alex Neufeldt, one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit centers on a 2018 target set by Premier Doug Ford’s right-leaning Progressive Conservatives to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the government to set a more stringent target. A lower court dismissed the case last year, ruling the target did not deprive the plaintiffs of their rights and the government did not have an obligation to guarantee them in this context.

The judge concluded any disproportionate impact on young people was caused by climate change, not Ontario’s government.

But Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette also found the target “falls short and its deficiencies contribute to increasing the risks of death.”

In their appeal submission, the plaintiffs said Ontario is exacerbating climate change and “discriminating against youth and future generations on the basis of their age by forcing them to disproportionately bear the brunt of climate harms.”

Ontario argued its target does not violate Canada’s constitution and its climate-change plan is not a matter for the courts. It said the target is “a statement of the government’s policy aspirations” and not a regulatory scheme.

Asked about the lawsuit, the environment ministry said Ontario had made progress cutting emissions and supported electric-vehicle production.

The plaintiffs have a decent chance of success amid increasing public acceptance of the impacts of climate change, said Steve Lorteau, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto’s law faculty, who studies climate litigation.

A plaintiffs’ win “would add another victory to the small but growing list of cases where courts are coming out to recognize the right to a stable environment and the obligation of governments to take science-based climate action,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. But the case faces obstacles. University of Waterloo politics professor and constitutional law expert Emmett Macfarlane does not think the lawsuit will succeed, saying it expands its interpretation of Canada’s constitution to the point of rewriting it.

But if the case makes it to Canada’s Supreme Court and wins, that would “dramatically open the door to new litigation” in Canada, Macfarlane said.

“That would be explosive. It would have immediate ramifications for all governments.”