Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a case brought by a group of young Canadians who argued that the federal government’s failure to implement meaningful carbon emissions targets violated their Charter rights—raising important questions about how environmental inaction intersects with constitutional obligations.
Key Points Discussed
The Legal Context
A group of youth under the age of 18 filed a constitutional challenge claiming that Canada’s lack of adequate carbon emissions targets breached their rights under section 7 of the Charter—the right to life, liberty, and security of the person—and section 15, which protects against discrimination. They argued that failing to preserve the environment disproportionately harms younger generations and discriminates based on age. The Ontario Superior Court allowed the section 15 claim to proceed but struck the section 7 claim, reasoning that it attempted to impose a positive obligation on the state. The Ontario Court of Appeal later overturned that decision, finding that the claim did not impose a positive obligation, and remitted the matter back to the lower court for trial. Despite the significance of the case, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear it.
Why This Case Matters
Unclear Limits of Section 7
This case highlights the ongoing uncertainty in Canadian constitutional law about when section 7 imposes obligations on the state to act. The Supreme Court has rarely addressed this distinction directly, and this case presented a critical opportunity to clarify the line between what the state must not do and what it must do to protect individual rights.
Climate Inaction as a Rights Violation
The youth plaintiffs framed climate change as a Charter issue—arguing that the long-term harms of government inaction infringe on their fundamental rights. The case raised the novel question of whether failing to act on a global crisis like climate change can amount to a constitutional violation.
Missed Opportunity for Legal Clarity
The Supreme Court could have:
-Established clearer guidance on positive obligations under section 7
-Defined a legal test for assessing constitutional challenges related to environmental policy
-Offered lower courts direction on how to handle claims involving novel rights issues and intergenerational harm
Instead, the case will now proceed through trial without the benefit of Supreme Court input, likely leading to future appeals and legal uncertainty for other litigants raising similar claims.
Topics Covered
-The line between positive and negative Charter obligations
-Climate change as a constitutional issue
-Intergenerational discrimination under section 15
-The role of the courts in addressing systemic government inaction
