Youth climate activists appeal Ontario court decision on greenhouse gas targets

The environmental law charity that represents youth suing the Ontario government over its climate change plan has filed an appeal, following a judge's dismissal last month.

Ecojustice represents a group of Ontario youth who say the province has set insufficient targets to combat climate change, which threatens future generations and their Charter rights.

Superior court judge Marie-Andrée Vermette agreed with the youth applicants that climate change will have a disproportionate negative impact on youth and Indigenous people, and that the province is risking people's lives by not having a stronger plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"By not taking steps to reduce GHG (greenhouse gases) in the province further, Ontario is contributing to an increase in the risk of death and in the risks faced by the Applicants and others," Vermette wrote in her decision.

In 2018 the Ford government announced its "Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan" that proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Last year the province quietly revised its targets, although it said it was still on track to cut emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Progress in reducing emissions was largely due to decisions made under the previous Liberal governments — most notably ending Ontario's use of coal-fired electricity generation. .

Vermette dismissed the youths' lawsuit because she said any inadequacies in the province's climate plan did not rise to the level of violating the right to life, liberty and security under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Danielle Gallant, a lawyer with Ecojustice representing the youth, said although the judge agreed the province's climate plan was inadequate, because it would still reduce greenhouse gas emissions it could not qualify as a violation of Charter rights.

"We are going to argue that the judge erred in finding that the target was not arbitrary because she had already found that the target was severely below what the scientific consensus required," Gallant said.

"And that difference between the target and science was large, was not explained, and without any scientific basis." 

Although she is appealing the decision, Gallant said the case is already significant because it's the first time a Canadian court has weighed in on climate change as a human rights issue.

"You know, it's possible to hold governments accountable for its climate action through the courts," she said.