1. Legal Hurdles and Pathways: The Evolution (Progress?) of Climate Change Adjudication in Canada.
- Author
-
Cameron, Camille, Weyman, Riley, and Nicholson, Claire
- Subjects
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- Reports -- Evidence ,Balancing tests (Law) -- Analysis ,Environmental law, International -- Evaluation ,Environmental movement -- Forecasts and trends -- Analysis ,Environmental sciences -- Usage -- Analysis ,Liability for environmental damages -- Evidence -- Laws, regulations and rules -- Remedies ,Human rights -- Environmental aspects -- Remedies -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Complex litigation -- Environmental aspects -- Forecasts and trends -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Standing (Law) -- Environmental aspects -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Government liability -- Environmental aspects -- Evidence -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Pragmatism -- Analysis ,Mathur v. Ontario (2020 O.N.S.C. 6918 (Ont.)) ,Government regulation ,Market trend/market analysis ,United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015 ,Canada. Constitution Act 1982 (Can. Const. pt. 1, s. 7) (Can. Const. pt. 1, s. 15) - Abstract
Introduction I. Mathur background II. The role and evolution of "justiciability" in climate change litigation III. Charter claims 1. Introduction 2. Positive rights 3. Mathur and positive rights 4. Principles [...], Citizens, civil society, and environmental justice organizations are increasingly turning to courts to find solutions to climate change challenges. As of November 2022, the number of climate change litigation cases throughout the world was at least 2.5 times higher than in 2017. A dominant wave of this litigation is one in which claimants assert that governments' failures to take appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures violate claimants' rights. We analyze this jurisprudence in this article, with a focus on the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Mathur v Ontario. While the claims in this case were dismissed, it is groundbreaking as it is the first of these cases in Canada in which the claims were heard on the merits and were found to be justiciable. However, this case also demonstrates how difficult it is given the current state of the law in Canada for such claims to be advanced successfully. We examine the reasons for these limitations, and we propose some possible solutions. We also analyze how Mathur contributes to transnational climate jurisprudence, including the court's acknowledgement and use of international climate science. Les citoyens, la soci t civile et les organisations de justice environnementale se tournent de plus en plus vers les tribunaux pour trouver des solutions aux probl mes li s au changement climatique. En novembre 2022, le nombre de litiges li s au changement climatique dans le monde tait au moins 2,5 fois plus lev qu'en 2017. Une vague dominante de ces litiges est celle dans laquelle les demandeurs affirment que l'incapacit des gouvernements prendre des mesures d'att nuation et d'adaptation appropri es viole leurs droits. Nous analysons cette jurisprudence dans cet article, en mettant l'accent sur la r cente d cision de la Cour sup rieure de justice de l'Ontario dans l'affaire Mathur c. Ontario. Bien que les demandes dans cette affaire aient t rejet es, il s'agit d'une premi re au Canada dans laquelle celles-ci ont t entendues sur le fond et jug es justiciables. Cependant, cette affaire d montre galement quel point il est difficile, dans l' tat actuel du droit au Canada, de faire valoir avec succ s de telles revendications. Nous examinons les raisons de ces limitations et proposons quelques solutions possibles. Nous analysons galement la contribution de l'affaire Mathur la jurisprudence transnationale en mati re de climat, notamment la reconnaissance et l'utilisation par la Cour de la science climatique internationale.
- Published
- 2024