In October 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision for Mathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (“Mathur”). While Mathur helps clarify when the Charter is triggered in climate litigation and the distinction between positive and negative rights claims, the relief suggested by the court may not fully satisfy the expectations of those advocating for stronger climate action.
This article addresses some of the finer points in Mathur and discusses whether the remedies ultimately suggested by the Court of Appeal are appropriate in the face of climate emergencies.
Background and Procedural History
In 2018, the Government of Ontario passed the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, S.O. 2018, c. 13 (“Bill 4”).[1] Alongside repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 7 (the “Cap and Trade Act”) which had previously facilitated the creation of a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions and contained greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, Bill 4 required the government to set a new target for greenhouse gas emissions. The Ontario Government subsequently set a new target for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels (the “Target”). While compliant with Canada’s commitments under the United Nations’ 2015 Paris Agreement, the Target was both less than the 37% reduction proposed under the Cap-and-Trade Act, and the 40–45% reduction pledged by the Government of Canada in 2022.[2]
The claimants, seven youth between the ages of 16 and 27, issued a notice of application in 2019, asking, in part, for a declaration that the Target violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, and could not be saved under section 1. The claimants also sought an order for the Ontario Government to set a “science-based [greenhouse gas] reduction target” compliant with the Charter and the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius pre-industrial levels.[3]