Pushing back against rising political apathy around our environment’s future, youth climate activists in Canada are making history with two significant legal victories that are reshaping the fight for climate justice.
On December 18, a group of 15 young Canadians from seven provinces and a territory, who argue the federal government's inaction on climate change is putting their future well-being at risk, received the green light from the Federal Court of Canada to take their climate case — La Rose et al. vs. His Majesty the King — to trial in October 2026.
In 2020, Federal Court Judge Michael Manson dismissed the youth climate lawsuit, arguing the government's broad role in climate change action was beyond the scope of judicial review. Manson said it failed to present a valid cause of action and had "no reasonable prospect of success."
The plaintiffs appealed arguing Canada’s government must be held accountable for its climate policies, and the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of proceeding with the case in December 2023.
The Federal Court has now finally allocated eight weeks for the trial starting October next year in Vancouver.
“I am happy we finally have a trial date, but I'm disappointed that after five years in the system it's going to be another year of waiting,” one of the plaintiffs and Vancouver resident Zoe said in a statement released by Oregon-based law firm Our Children’s Trust. “The federal government is not acting with the urgency the climate emergency deserves. At least we have an open trial so Canadians can see how much effort their government is taking to avoid protecting their rights to a stable climate.”
This victory came just two months after another significant development for climate justice.
On October 17, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of seven youth activists, overturning a lower court’s dismissal of their case. In December, Ontario’s PC government filed for leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, setting the stage for a potentially precedent-setting case at the country’s highest court. It was the second attempt by Premier Doug Ford’s government to quash the application.
Both cases have two things in common.
Each group has grounded its case in Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing climate change disproportionately affects young people. From worsening air quality to rising mental health challenges, they will face the worst consequences of environmental degradation without urgent and comprehensive action. The activists contend that the government's failure to address these issues violates their right to life, liberty, security and equality.
Both cases also trace their origin back to 2019.
That's five years of legal battles, persistence and small but significant victories, demonstrating the resilience of these young activists who refuse to back down in their fight for a sustainable future.
As these young plaintiffs have grown from kids into teenagers and young adults over this lengthy legal process, the climate crisis, too, has continued its relentless damage.
A problem around the world, as more and more young people use legal systems to challenge governments and corporations, is that judges and the courts themselves have been slow to adapt and respond to a radically changing reality. Decisions that claim courts are not suited to weigh in on sweeping issues that will have widespread and lasting impacts on the economy and society at large argue that governments are the only institutions empowered to make such critical choices on behalf of the constituents who give them their power.
In Canada, governments have argued climate cases are not “justiciable”, meaning they are not within the jurisdiction of the courts because they deal with policy making which is the job of legislators, not judges.
Critics have decried such legal justifications, pointing out that economic and social consequences around political decision making won’t matter, if we don’t have clean air to breathe, water to drink and oceans to regulate our atmosphere, as planetary collapse eventually renders all other day-to-day considerations inconsequential.
It is up to judges to understand there is no more time to waste, looking to governments for direction on the greatest threat facing humankind, one the courts must show leadership on, to set a course that puts the well being of eight billion people and the planet they inhabit ahead of all else.
Legal philosophy is changing as more and more courts around the world, including in Canada, rule that climate cases should move forward. It will now be up to judges to show backbone and legal creativity in departing from lazy decision making based on precedents that are no longer relevant in the face of today’s rapidly changing realities.
The appeal decision that allowed La Rose to move forward after the earlier setback was a breath of fresh air.
“The law cannot remain stagnant,” Federal Court Justice Donald J. Rennie wrote in his ruling at the end of 2023. He eloquently described the necessary balancing act the courts must perform: “[C]ourts must be cautious in spurring its [the law’s] development: too quick and the law becomes unpredictable and capricious, too slow and justice falls behind and loses its relevancy.”
He continued, writing that “as the history of the common law demonstrates, it may be essential that a novel, but as-yet unprecedented argument proceed to an in-depth analysis. It is only in this way that the common law can evolve to respond to the challenges of modern society.”
Waiting for politicians (under constant pressure to hold onto power while profit-driven interests exert maximum influence on them) to act, will no longer work, advocates around the world point out.
The courts, they say, need to establish themselves as the guardrail of our future.
And the window is quickly closing.
From 2019 to 2023, Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fluctuated slightly. In 2019, emissions were 752 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent, and by 2023, they had decreased to 702 Mt. Over these four years, emissions decreased by 50 Mt in total. The annual changes varied, with a decrease of 66 Mt from 2019 to 2020, a slight increase of 12 Mt in 2021, followed by a 10 Mt rise in 2022, and a small reduction of 6 Mt in 2023.
To put this into perspective, while these fluctuations are notable, Canada remains one of the world's top emitters, contributing approximately 1.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to Climate Watch.
Canada remains the eleventh largest GHG emitter globally, with Ontario ranking just behind Alberta as the second-largest provincial emitter, generating 157 megatonnes of carbon emissions in 2022, according to the annual national inventory of emissions report.
In 2019, Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions were 165.5 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The following year, emissions dropped to 148.5 Mt due to pandemic-related reductions. However, the upward trend resumed in 2021, with emissions rising to 151.1 Mt, and further increased to 157 Mt in 2022.
As reported by The Pointer previously, regionally, the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area followed a similar trend, with a two percent increase in GHG emissions in 2023, rising from 53.5 million tonnes in 2022 to 54.5 million tonnes, surpassing pre-pandemic levels.
But these numbers are not just statistics; they’re a reflection of an emerging reality. The glass is beginning to overflow, with the impact of climate change now mirroring the figures.
Mississauga was hit by two 100-year storms within a month in 2024; Brampton's historic Churchville neighbourhood faced severe flooding in 2022, worsened by its proximity to the Credit River. Meanwhile, Peel region is warming at twice the global average, leading to an increasing number of record-breaking heatwaves that are straining the already overburdened healthcare system and threatening public health.
As legal battles continue, the question remains: can we afford the delay? With climate impacts worsening every year, are the courts truly the best avenue for justice, or is the pace of legal proceedings too slow to prevent further devastation?
Environmental non-profit organization Sierra Club Canada Foundation spokesperson Conor Curtis says he’s “torn” when it comes to this issue.
Curtis says while legal proceedings are incredibly useful, they might not necessarily be the best or the only way. “I think it's one of the spectrum of ways,” he said.
He points out that legal victories, while often slow, can set important precedents that might help accelerate future cases. However, Curtis emphasizes the importance of other methods, particularly influencing public opinion.
“One thing that we need to do more of, that we don't do as much of, that's highly useful is influencing public opinion and trying to sway the public over the importance of climate action," he says. "Media coverage of these high-profile cases plays a significant role in raising awareness and shaping public perception."
Curtis says while he values legal action, he believes grassroots organizing and public engagement are equally crucial.
"The focus should be on creating an informed, supportive public base. Legal action is just one way to do that, and it can help drive broader awareness when done right. But in my view, it's not the most important tool—it’s part of a larger effort."