Mark Carney Sworn in as New Canadian Prime Minister

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On March 14, 2025, Mark Carney was sworn in as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister. He replaces Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation earlier this year.

Although he has never held elected office, Carney won the Liberal Party’s leadership contest in a landslide, with his stellar financial background proving persuasive to party members at a time when Trump’s trade wars and threats of annexing the country are predicted to slow economic growth and raise inflation.

As Governor of the Bank of Canada, Carney helped Canada successfully navigate the 2008 financial crisis, winning accolades for “presiding over a banking system that didn’t need a single bailout.” He also steered the UK financial system through its post-Brexit fallout as Governor of the Bank of England, and played a “key role in the global response to the policies of the first Trump presidency” as chair of the international Financial Stability Board from 2011 to 2018. He then went on to work as chair and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management, and as chair of the board of directors for Bloomberg L.P.

In addition to his impressive track record in the world of public and private finance, Carney boasts an extensive background in climate and environmental advocacy. Even prior to his 2019 appointment as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, Carney had been an outspoken proponent for a swift transition to a net-zero economy. His 2015 and 2016 speeches as governor of the Bank of England repeatedly emphasized the risks that climate change poses to global financial stability. He is on record as calling climate change an increasingly urgent “existential threat,” and demanding “more comprehensive action” aligning with scientific advice.

The extent to which Carney’s environmental convictions will survive the realities of his elevation to political office remains an open question. In one of his first acts as PM, he eliminated the consumer carbon price - thus “undoing Justin Trudeau’s signature climate policy” in view of taking the sails out of Conservatives’ “axe the tax” message.  Meanwhile, the fate of his larger climate plan – which includes measures targeting big polluters, as well as implementing financial incentives for consumers to choose more energy-efficient goods – will likely be determined by the upcoming elections, the announcement of which appears imminent.

Conservative supporters of the fossil fuel industry are certainly not rejoicing in his appointment. In a (slightly hysterical) article for the Calgary Herald, political columnist Don Braid has gone so far as to brand Carney a “climate zealot,” noting in particular the new PM’s well documented conviction that “more than 80 per cent of current fossil fuel reserves…would need to stay in the ground” in order for global warming to remain below 1.5°C. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith was only slightly more restrained in her remarks, claiming that Carney was “responsible for net zero banking” and that “he’s been on the warpath against the energy industry for his entire career.”

Hyperbole aside, these attacks indicate that big oil, at least, believes Carney to be a major threat to their interests. We can only hope they’re right.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate policy or green business matters.

COP29 in 10 Points

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On November 24, 2024, COP29 concluded in Baku, Azerbaijan with a climate finance agreement condemned as a “travesty of justice” by some negotiators, both for the insufficiency of funds pledged and for the manner in which the deal was rammed through at the 11th hour.

Unsurprisingly, few success stories came out of this year’s COP. Nevertheless, below, we’ve compiled COP29’s five (very modest) achievements and five of its most notable failures.

SUCCESSES

1.     $300 Billion a Year by 2035 in Climate Finance

Developed nations pledged to provide “at least” $300 billion a year by 2035 in climate financing to developing countries. The money is meant to help the countries least responsible for the global climate emergency cope with its costly consequences.

This is a step up from the $100 billion agreed at COP26 in 2021, but still falls well short of the $1.3 trillion that developing nations say they actually need from rich countries to protect their citizens and transition their economies away from fossil fuels. Plus, the deal reached fails to consider inflation, so the amount pledged only appears to have tripled.

2.     Rules for Carbon Trading

Trading in carbon credits, permitted under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, was once thought to be a quick and relatively cheap way for countries to cut their emissions. In theory, a polluter struggling to meet their commitment to cut emissions in time could finance, for example, a large-scale reforestation project, ensuring overall progress was still being made. In practice, the market in carbon credits remained unregulated, allowing wil proliferation of fraud and leading to the sale of largely worthless carbon offsets that did not actually result in any mitigation or reduction in emissions.

But at long last, governments at COP29 have agreed on rules for creating, trading and registering emission reductions and removals as carbon credits, completing implementation of the Paris Agreement. While concerns remain, and all of the technical details are yet to be sorted out, the market’s anticipated roll-out in 2025 could inject some badly-needed funds into climate mitigation and emission-capping measures.

3.     Countries Announce Ambitious NDC Targets for 2035

A coalition of 30 countries, including the UK, the EU and Canada announced tougher targets for their 2035 nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – commitments made by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - aiming to accelerate emissions reduction to the level consistent with keeping the global temperature rise within the 1.5°C Paris goal.

Given that scientists now say the 1.5°C climate target is “deader than a doornail”, and several countries involved also continue issuing new oil and gas exploration licences, one might be justified in greeting this announcement with skepticism. However, too little and too late as this commitment may be, the reductions pledged – if implemented – could still prove vital in keeping global temperatures as low as possible from the catastrophic 2.7°C rise currently forecasted.

4.     UK Pledges Funds for Forests

The UK announced it will provide GBP 239 million in funds to Colombia, Indonesia and other forest-rich nations to “support the critical role of forests as ‘carbon sinks.’”

However, of the amount committed, only GBP 3 million represents funds that the British government will pay over directly to the UN to help countries protect and restore their forests. Of the remainder, GBP 48 million “will go to blended finance to unlock private investment in sustainable forest enterprises”, while GBP 188 million will go to the Scaling Climate Action by Lowering Emissions, a forest carbon markets development programme.

5.     China Stepping Up?

With the dispiriting prospect of a second Trump presidency looming over the conference, the chief negotiator of “one of the most powerful countries at the COP” is tentatively putting his faith in China to take a “more central role” in future climate negotiations – or so, apparently, he confided to a BBC reporter.

According to the report, China’s negotiating style was “markedly different to [the] previous year,” with a surprise disclosure that, since 2016, the country has already paid $24 billion in climate finance to developing countries.

The hope among some parties is that China will step into the power vacuum Trump’s isolationist and climate-hostile policies will likely create. China may use this positioning to increase its international influence. Further, even though it remains the planet’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, some experts say that China’s emissions have either already peaked or will peak in 2025 – a hopeful sign that the country may be serious about establishing a leading role in green transition.

FAILURES

1.     $1 Trillion Funding Gap

Rich countries offered stiff resistance to the $1.3 trillion a year in grants and low-interest loans that nations on the sharp end of climate change demanded to help reach the $2.4 trillion needed to cut greenhouse gases and adapt infrastructure. In the end, only $300 billion was pledged - a figure that various commentators referred to as “abysmally poor” and “a joke”.

Dubbed a “global Ponzi scheme” by Oxfam International, the agreement preserves the $1.3 trillion sum as a “target”, but allows the majority of the funds to be “mobilised” from a variety of sources, including loans from private investors and yet-to-be agreed new levies on aviation and shipping.

Adding insult to the injury of inadequate funding, the deal struck left many with a bitter taste in their mouths. Oil-rich nations, aided and abetted by the host of the talks – Azerbaijan, itself a major fossil fuel producer – did all in their power to prevaricate and obstruct, before the COP president (Azerbaijan’s environment minister) gavelled through a “hedged, loose and half-hearted” settlement, over India’s last-minute objections.

2.     No Special Allocation for Developing Nations

Of the funds pledged, nothing has been reserved for countries most in need of support – those that are poorest and most vulnerable to the climate crisis. The Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries groups fought hard for a bigger slice of the money, at one point walking out of the negotiations to protest the inadequate offers made by rich nations. To no avail, alas: the most vulnerable states will have to share what little finance is made available with growing economies, such as India.

3.     Failure to Endorse Fossil Fuel Phase-Out

One key success of last year’s conference was that the final text all parties signed included a vital commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this year’s COP failed to follow through: the UAE Consensus, a document containing the commitment in question, was not endorsed by this year’s conference, with Saudi Arabia and its allies mounting a successful effort to sideline any discussion on the issue.

4.     Saudi Arabia Behaves Badly.

It was clear from the outset of this conference that Saudi Arabia was going to do everything in its power to roll back COP28’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels. From obstruction and “blatant and brazen” opposition to affirming the pledge, the country’s delegation was described as a “wrecking ball” at this year’s negotiations.

Its determined efforts went as far as unilaterally modifying the official negotiating text of the just transition work program. While such documents are usually circulated in non-editable PDFs, this text contained two edits made by Basel Alsubaity from the Saudi ministry of energy; one of which attempted to delete a section encouraging parties “to consider just transition pathways” in their various climate strategies and commitments.

While the tampering was quickly discovered – to outrage from other delegates and campaigners – Saudi intransigence carried the day. The part of the agreement dealing with transition away from fossil fuels was postponed until next year.

5.     Red Carpet For Fossil Fuel Interests

The president of Azerbaijan kicked off the festivities with the pronouncement that oil and gas were “a gift from God.” One of the senior officials in charge of the conference was filmed arranging meetings to discuss prospective fossil fuel deals. It appears the hosts of this year’s COP started as they meant to go on.

The presence of fossil fuel interests at the summit could only be described as “massive.” According to Kick Big Polluters Out, at least 1,773 lobbyists were in attendance, more than “all the delegates from the 10 most climate vulnerable nations combined.” The Azerbaijani government further rolled out the red carpet, directly inviting “132 oil and gas company bosses and staff” as its special guests.

I suppose it’s too much to hope they were all there to discuss disgorging some of the $1 trillion a year in profit that the oil and gas industry made, wrecking the planet over the last half a century?

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate policy or green business matters.

Shell Wins Appeal in Landmark Climate Case

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024, the Hague Appeals Court overturned a landmark 2021 decision ordering oil giant Shell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.

While the court acknowledged that Shell is obliged to reduce its emissions – given that “protection against global warming is a basic human right” – it agreed with Shell that imposing an emissions target could have adverse effects, including potentially causing some customers to use coal, which would be ever worse in terms of emissions. The court further held there was “no solid basis” for the 45% target imposed by the lower court, finding that “a civil court cannot determine to what reduction target Shell should be held” given available scientific data.

The rulings comes at a time when the Dutch oil giant is on-trend with various other international corporations whose climate and sustainability commitments have been backsliding of late. For example, it watered down near-term emission reduction goals in its March 2024 strategy update. It is therefore difficult to imagine that absent specific, legally-binding targets Shell will take the court’s admonitions about its “special responsibility” to cut CO2 emissions seriously.

However, some climate advocates believe that the appeal court’s decision - though disappointing - nevertheless affirms various important principles that could serve as the basis for future claims against big polluters. These principles established that:

• The obligation to reduce emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement is not limited to countries, as companies also bear that responsibility;

• In principle, a court can order companies to meet absolute emissions reduction goal, provided scientific research advances sufficiently to set specific actionable targets; and

• Corporations have responsibilities when it comes to human rights protection, including in the context of climate change.

Further, according to Thom Wetzer, an associate professor of law and finance at the University of Oxford, the court’s assessment of Shell’s oil and gas development plans as potentially “at odds” with the fact that it is “reasonable to expect oil and gas companies to take into account negative consequences of a further expansion of the supply of fossil fuels,” aligns with the argument that such expansionist projects are “fundamentally at odds with the Paris agreement.”

The critique may inspire more cases against specific fossil fuel development projects or investments, which could pave the way for judges to demand climate impact assessments before regulatory approvals are issued.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate policy or green business matters.

Ontario Youth Climate Activists Win Mathur Appeal

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On October 17, 2024, Ontario’s Court of Appeal sided with a group of young climate activists in its Mathur v. Ontario decision, reviving a case against the province which was previously dismissed in April 2023.

Represented by Ecojustice, the plaintiffs commenced litigation in 2019. They alleged that 2018's Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, passed by the (at the time) newly-elected Progressive Conservative government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, substantially increased the likelihood of Ontario’s future generations suffering serious and disproportionate harm resulting from anthropogenic climate change. And because Ontario’s new climate policy (or lack thereof) recklessly exacerbated climate change, the province was violating the Charter rights of its youth. Specifically, their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7, and their equality right under s. 15.

Having survived two attempts at summary dismissal, the case came before Justice Vermette in Ontario’s Superior Court in 2022. Though scathing in her assessment of the provincial government’s decision to limit climate efforts “to an objective that falls severely short of the scientific consensus as to what is required,” the Justice nevertheless concluded the Charter cannot impose positive obligations on government to set more ambitious climate goals. She dismissed the claim accordingly.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court’s view. It determined that the plaintiffs were not looking to impose upon the province a “new positive obligation”. Rather, the court regarded Ontario as having already voluntarily taken on an emissions reduction obligation pursuant to s. 3(1) of CTCA, which states that “[t]he Government shall establish targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario and may revise the targets from time to time.”

Soon after passing the CTCA, the Ford government released its Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which stated that “Ontario will reduce its emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.” The Court of Appeal regarded this as effectively fulfilling the promise made by s. 3(1), even if the government did it by means of a policy plan rather than official legislation or regulation. Once assumed, the government’s legislative obligation had to be fulfilled in a manner compatible with the Charter.

The Court of Appeal then faced the legal question of whether Ontario’s climate action plan and emission reduction targets are Charter compliant - and decided to punt, remitting the case back to Superior Court for a new trial on revised grounds.

The Court of Appeal did, however, offer some promising guidance concerning the remedies sought by the plaintiffs, giving short shrift to the government’s claim that the plaintiffs’ request for a science-based emissions target was “impossible to order” or “vague and imprecise”. With reference to relevant case law, the judges made it clear that “ordering Ontario to produce a constitutionally compliant” climate plan and emissions target was well within the range of remedies available to the lower court.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate policy or green business matters.

Canada Announces Green Taxonomy and Climate Disclosures Rules for Federal Corporations

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On October 9, 2024, Canada’s federal government announced it will establish a “Made-in-Canada” sustainable investing taxonomy, and institute mandatory climate disclosure requirements for large, federally-incorporated private companies.

A sustainable investing taxonomy (often simply called a ‘green taxonomy’) is a classification system intended to help investors identify “activities or assets that contribute to environmental and/or social objectives.” The proposed Canadian framework aims to encompass not only obviously “green” investments (solar and wind), but also those that are “transitional”, meaning investments that “help significantly reduce emissions” in high-polluting enterprises. Examples of “transitional” investments controversially include methane and carbon capture projects.

According to plans unveiled by Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland at the Principles for Responsible Investment conference, the federal government will provide initial funding and support to an “arm’s-length third-party organisation(s)” that will develop scientifically-credible eligibility criteria to categorize investments as either green or transitional.

The taxonomy will draw on the recommendations of the Taxonomy Roadmap Report produced by the Sustainable Finance Action Council (SFAC), launched in May 2021. The initial focus will be on sectors identified as “priority” (i.e., emission-intensive sectors such as electricity and extraction) and guidelines for the first two to three sectors are expected within twelve months of taxonomy work commencing.

Freeland also announced that the federal government is moving forward with plans to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to require mandatory climate-related financial disclosures required from large, federally incorporated private companies. However, these plans are in their infancy at present, with the government promising to “launch a regulatory process to determine the substance of these disclosure requirements and the size of private federal corporations that would be subject to them.” 

It’s an interesting legal point that Canada will require climate-related disclosures from large private companies through its federal corporate legislation, whereas the US and other jurisdictions typically require climate-related disclosures from large public companies, with applicable rules issued by national securities regulation agencies. Canada, however, is in a unique position as a country which lacks a federal securities regulation agencies (though the Canadian Securities Administrators functions as a federal, non-governmental securities coordination agency for the provincial regulators).

Heralded as part of the federal government’s strategy for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, the taxonomy and disclosure rules are expected to “mobilize further private sector capital towards activities essential to building a net-zero economy.”

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate policy or green business matters.

Canada Passes Sustainable Jobs Act

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

After passing through the House of Commons in April, and more recently garnering Senate approval, the Sustainable Jobs Act received royal assent on June 20, 2024.

The Act is a major plank of the federal government’s overall climate plan. As its name suggests, the legislation’s goal is to support workers and communities by creating high-quality, socially-responsible (and preferably unionized) jobs, as part of the transition away from fossil fuels.

A largely-procedural law, similar to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, the Sustainable Jobs Act provides for the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Council to advise government ministers in planning the energy transition and its impact on Canadian employment. The Council will feature representatives from labour and environmental groups, as well as Indigenous communities. It also requires issuance of a Sustainable Jobs Action Plan every five years, to serve as a framework for supporting workers through the transition.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Act will not in itself monumentally change anything, the Conservative Party of Canada strenuously fought its passage. Conservative MPs went as far as proposing almost 20,000 amendments during the committee stage (possibly generated with the help of AI). Roughly 200 proposed amendments of these were still live before the House of Commons’ vote, leading Speaker Greg Fergus to rule nearly half simply inadmissible.

Although previously criticized for being too weak on Indigenous rights, as well as for its inclusion of “false solutions,” such as carbon capture, the Act’s passage represents the fulfilment of a long-standing government promise and pragmatic (albeit modest) move in the direction of building a more sustainable Canadian economy.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate, green business, and/or  employment matters.

European Court Rules Climate Inaction Violates Human Rights

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its long-awaited first ruling in the climate action case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland. The court determined that the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses the right to effective protection from adverse effects of climate change.

The lawsuit was filed by a Swiss climate protection association for senior women. Its members, aged 74 on average, were concerned by their particular vulnerability to heat waves. They alleged that the Swiss government’s failure to take sufficient action to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change violated their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

The ECHR ruled that Swiss authorities did not meet their "positive obligations" under the Convention to protect individuals from the severe impacts of climate change, emphasizing that Switzerland and other European states must take effective measures to mitigate these effects on life and health. The Court specified that States must implement immediate measures to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, aiming for net neutrality within the next three decades.

Switzerland was found to have violated both Article 8 and Article 6.1 of the Convention by not establishing a regulatory framework for controlling its emissions and by denying the applicants a proper legal avenue to address their grievances. The Court, however, dismissed similar claims against France and Portugal for technical legal reasons, including applicants’ lack of standing and failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen’s ruling signals to other EU member states that their latitude in addressing climate obligations is constrained. The Court listed several minimum standards it will use to assess compliance in the future. These include adopting GHG reduction targets, keeping them updated with “due diligence”, monitoring compliance, and timely implementing relevant GHG-reduction and climate-mitigation measures.

The fact that this decision was delivered by a near-unanimous panel of 17 judges from “different countries, perspectives and legal backgrounds” (the UK judge being the sole dissenting voice) is a hopeful sign for future European climate litigation. Furthermore, the ruling may have international legal implications. For example, it may influence foreign courts’ perspectives on climate change and the law. Indeed, Canadian courts have cited the precedent of previous European precedents in federal and provincial climate action cases brought before them.

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate and energy policy matters.

Ontario Ag-Gag Law Declared Partly Unconstitutional

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On Tuesday, Ontario’s Superior Court struck down various provisions of the province’s controversial Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, an “ag-gag” law which acts to shield the animal agriculture industry from reasonable scrutiny and conceal its systemic cruelty.

Passed in 2020, the Act made it effectively illegal to conduct undercover investigations within farms, slaughterhouses, and other meat, dairy, egg, and fur industry operations in Ontario. Notably, for purposes of understanding the lawsuit, several provisions prohibited anyone from securing employment at these facilities under false pretenses - a tactic often used by animal rights activists to document and expose the conditions under which animals are kept and slaughtered.

The lawsuit’s applicants, which included Canadian animal rights advocacy org Animal Justice [ed note: friendly colleagues of Green Economy Law], challenged the Act’s constitutionality, contending that it sought to protect the animal agriculture industry by means of overbroad speech prohibition.

In his written decision, Justice Markus Koehnen agreed that a number of the Act’s provisions went too far; these were declared “of no force and effect” for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' freedom of expression protections. However, other challenged provisions were deemed proportionate to the law’s stated objectives, namely guarding against risks to animal safety, biosecurity, as well as property and economic considerations. These provisions were left unaffected. 

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with plant-based business law and policy matters.

US Adopts Climate Disclosure Rules for Public Companies

Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.

On March 6, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new rules that, per the SEC press release, will “enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies in public offerings.” 

The rules will take effect 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and require publicly-traded companies in the US to disclose climate-related risks that may have a “material impact” on business strategies, finances, and/or operations. Companies must also disclose:

• direct and indirect emissions (i.e., scope 2 emissions);

• processes they have for identifying climate-related risks;

• mitigation or planned mitigation efforts;

• climate-related targets and goals; and

• costs and losses incurred as a result of extreme weather and other “natural conditions”.

The SEC also contemplated requiring scope 3 emission disclosures. These pertain to supply chain and end-customer emissions, and tend to form a substantial part of a company’s carbon footprint. However, these requirements proved too controversial and vulnerable to legal challenge, resulting in their ultimate exclusion from the final rules.

Notwithstanding efforts to make the rules more amenable to affected corporations, ten states have already announced a coalition to challenge the new disclosure rules in court, claiming that emission disclosure requirements are “illegal and unconstitutional”. On the other hand, from environmentalists’ point of view, the disclosure requirements do not go far enough. Climate advocates claim that up to “60% of US-based public companies will be exempt from the rules,” and that in their watered-down state, the rules may not amount to much beyond greenwashing.

Whether or not the SEC’s capitulation on scope 3 emissions will help safeguard the rules against legal challenge remains an open question. The current conservative-weighted SCOTUS has proven generally hostile to regulation and indifferent to climate concerns. Accordingly, the new rules are forecast by many, including writers for Harvard and Columbia Law, to face challenges overcoming the “major questions doctrine” – a recent Supreme Court invention maintaining federal agencies may only regulate  “major issues” with explicit congressional authorization.

In the meantime, Canada’s equivalent proposed rules have been stuck in regulatory limbo for roughly two years, presumably waiting for the SEC rules to drop first. The consultation period for Canadian Securities Administrators’ proposed National Instrument 51-107 Disclosure of Climate Related Matters, published October 2021, closed on January 17, 2022. Since then, there’s been no further movement on the subject matter. 

Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate and/or securities law matters.

State of Canadian Climate Law: 2024 Report

Green Economy Law Professional Corporation is a boutique Toronto-based law firm with a focus on green business startups, psychedelics, and housing.

For more information, please visit our firm website at www.greeneconomylaw.com or contact the firm at info@greeneconomylaw.com.

Authors: Veronica Kunkel, Monika Bar, and Marc Z. Goldgrub

Disclaimer: This report does not and should not be understood to constitute legal, medical, financial, investing, or any other kind of professional advice. Nor should anything herein be understood as a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell any security.

The cover of this report makes use of an image generated by DALL-E.

Publication Date: February 2024

You can download a PDF of the full report here.

Introduction

In 2023, having just emerged from the COVID-19 crisis, Canadians confronted previously inconceivable consequences of our changing climate. Unprecedented wildfires, exacerbated by another year of record heat, raged for months in nearly every province and territory.[1] In cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary, residents were occasionally advised to stay indoors to avoid breathing ash-filled air.[2] The fires were then complimented by severe flooding in the Maritimes.[3]

Notwithstanding the evident and worsening repercussion of humanity’s failure to mitigate climate change, an ambitious policy agenda advanced by federal Environment Minister (and former Greenpeace activist) Steven Guilbeault battled staunch opposition by several provincial governments. Worse still, a misleading ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, spearheaded by the inflammatory and resolutely anti-environment Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, made national carbon pricing controversial for the umpteenth time - seven years and two federal elections after its introduction.[4]

In this report, we provide a broad overview of the current animated Canadian climate law and policy landscape. We review the most consequential legal efforts, successes, and failures of the last year, including:

• Canada’s newly enshrined right to a healthy environment;

• The introduction of jobs-focused green transition legislation;

• A proposed oil and gas industry cap-and-trade program;

• Ongoing youth climate action litigation; and

• The year’s most significant environmental law court rulings.

Much of this report is derived from our Green Economy Law blog coverage of environmental and climate law news. To keep updated on developments as they occur, follow Green Economy Law on LinkedIn and/or subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Climate Legislation and Policy

Over the last year, Canada’s federal government established a statutory right to a healthy environment, introduced green transition legislation, launched a national climate adaptation strategy, and published draft regulations for a cleaner national electric grid, a cap on energy sector emissions, and the transition to a zero (or low) emission vehicle future.

Below, we discuss each item in detail:

1. Bill S-5: Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

On June 13, 2023, Canada’s Strengthening Environmental Protections for a Healthier Canada Act received royal ascent.[5] It amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to recognize a Canadian right to a healthy environment and otherwise update the nation’s principal environmental protection legislation.

The amended law formally declares that “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment” and requires Canada’s government to protect that right “subject to any reasonable limits.” To accomplish this, Environment and Climate Change Canada must “develop an implementation framework to set out how [the] right will be considered in the administration” of the law.

The explicit conferral of a right to a healthy environment should, in theory, allow potential claimants, such as youth climate action litigants, to directly challenge government policies and actions that infringe upon Canadians’ environmental rights. Taking into consideration recent (and so-far unsuccessful) Charter-focused climate action cases such as La Rose and Mathur (discussed more later in this report), the amended CEPA may accordingly carve a legal path for new, more successful claims.[6]

2. Bill C-50: The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

Also in June, Canada’s legislature introduced Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.[7] The proposed legislation seeks to establish a framework by which the federal government will plan for and assist Canada’s workforce in transitioning to a new, more sustainable economy.

The Act functions by requiring that a minister - whichever one the government thinks best suited to the task - deliver a “Sustainable Jobs Action Plan” every five years. The first plan is due December 31, 2025.

Each plan must:

• Establish sustainable jobs support programs and policies;

• Identify plan goals and milestones;

• Summarize “available data related to economic growth and the labour market in a net-zero economy”; and

• Detail progress made in achieving the milestones of previous plans, as applicable.

The Act also calls for the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to consist of a maximum 15 members who “reflect Canada’s diversity”. The council will advise the responsible minister on strategies “to encourage growth in good-paying, high-quality jobs...in a net zero economy”, with such advice being incorporated in the creation of each plan. The minister responsible for creating and implementing the Sustainable Jobs Action Plan must publish annual reports containing the council’s advice, as well as the minister’s response to such advice. Lastly, the Act calls for the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to provide administrative and advisory support with the implementation of each plan.

Despite the ruling Liberal Party’s strenuous efforts to reassure the fossil fuel industry that the Act will not bring about the sector’s demise anytime soon, the industry and its most ardent supporters, like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, have nonetheless sought to depict and wage political warfare against the bill as an existential threat to Canadian oil and gas.[8] In reality, the proposed legislation is a procedural planning and accountability measure similar in form to 2021’s Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.[9]

3. Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy

To close out a busy June 2023, the Government of Canada launched its National Adaptation Strategy. It identifies various goals and focus areas for future climate adaptation-related initiatives and investments.[10] It also establishes four principles to guide decision-makers in designing and implementing adaptation policies:

• Respecting local, provincial, territorial, national, and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments’ climate adaptation efforts and upholding Indigenous rights;

• Advancing equity and environmental justice;

• Taking proactive, risk-based measures to reduce climate impacts before they occur; and

• Maximizing adaptation benefits while avoiding “maladaptation”.

The plan’s priorities are arranged in pyramid form, with action plans outlining immediate priorities at the top; near and medium-term objectives to be achieved by 2030 in the middle; and longer- term 2050 goals at the base. The government’s news release summary further stated that the framework will “reduce the risks of climate-related disasters, improve health outcomes, protect nature and biodiversity, build and maintain resilient infrastructure, and support a strong economy and workers.”[11]

In terms of implementation, the Government of Canada Adaptation Action Plan presents a range of federal government actions and funding commitments, including up to $284 million over five years for wildfire prevention/mitigation and establishing a Centre for Wildland Fire Innovation and Resilience. Provinces and territories are expected to contribute their own adaptation initiatives, with the federal government promising to facilitate increased “coordination, cooperation, and exchange of best practices between different orders of government.”[12]

The federal government will also look to work with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities over the next two years to develop and advance an Indigenous Climate Leadership Agenda that reflects Indigenous climate priorities.[13]

4. Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap

In December, Environment Minister Guilbeault announced the draft Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap at COP28 in Dubai. The framework outlines a set of regulations, promulgated pursuant to CEPA, that will establish a cap-and-trade program for Canada’s oil and gas industry, with a sectoral limit 35-38% below 2019 levels. The cap will lower every year, requiring oil and gas companies to reduce emissions (or buy and trade emission allowances) until the sector hits the government’s 2050 net-zero goal.[14]

The proposed program was developed following years of “extensive engagement with industry, Indigenous groups, provinces and territories, and stakeholders,” according to the government’s press release.[15] Nonetheless, the framework’s announcement was (predictably) met with immediate disparagement by the oil and gas industry,[16] while environmentalist reactions ranged from “reasonable and necessary” to “tepid...weak”.[17]

Paraphrasing an unnamed source and Minister Guilbeault, CBC reported that the framework’s modest targets – dropped from a planned 42% below 2019 levels by 2030 – could be attributed to the federal government’s desire to “avoid legal and constitutional fights with provinces” in light of recent court decisions forcing Ottawa to “tread more carefully on climate policy.”[18]

5. Proposed Regulations to Incentivize Adoption of Low-Emission Vehicles

Environment and Climate Change Canada also announced draft regulations in December aimed at encouraging greater adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), namely electric and hydrogen- powered passenger cars, SUVs and light trucks.[19] The proposed regulations will require car companies to hit specific ZEV target fleet sales percentages:

• 20% starting in 2026;

• 60% by 2030; and

• 100% by 2035.

If companies fail to achieve these goals, they will need to buy credits from competitors who exceed their annual ZEV sales targets. Alternatively, companies can perform an “eligible ZEV activity” in lieu of purchasing credits, such as installing charging stations or other ZEV infrastructure.[20]

The draft regulations were widely reported as a gas vehicle sales “ban” or electric vehicle sales “mandate”.[21] In fact, the rules will institute a market-based, cap-and-trade style program designed to incentivize ZEV sales.

6. Clean Electricity Regulations

The Clean Electricity Regulations aim to reduce electricity generation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada to net-zero by 2035. The finalized rules are slated for publication later this year and intended to take effect January 1, 2025. They will establish technology-neutral ‘command-and-control’ emission performance standards for the electricity sector. These will strengthen over time in favour of low-carbon energy sources. Carbon capture and sequestration use is also anticipated.[22]

Although the regulations have not been published, Alberta has already launched a massive campaign against them, with Premier Smith referring to the 2035 net-zero goal as "impossible for the province to meet without risking blackouts and high costs for consumers.”[23] Alberta’s legislature even went as far as tabling a resolution to invoke, for the first time, its controversial Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act in response to the Clean Electricity Regulations.[24]

The Sovereignty Act purports to suspend allegedly unconstitutional and/or Alberta-unfriendly federal law. It is, in reality, largely an Act of legislative publicity.[25] A motion pursuant to said Act, tabled in November 2023, pre-emptively called for “all provincial entities to ignore” the Clean Electricity Regulations when they come into effect...but only to the extent legally permissible.[26]

Climate Action Litigation

In 2023, one youth climate action lawsuit was dismissed while another received new life. In both cases though, the courts determined that the plaintiffs’ Charter complaints were (at least partly) justiciable – that is, within the scope of the court’s jurisdiction for review – which bodes well for the success of future climate litigation.

1. Mathur v. Ontario

In Mathur v. Ontario, seven young plaintiffs alleged that Ontario’s lackluster 2018 climate plan violates the Charter rights of today’s youth and future generations. They specifically focused on the province’s 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, which substantially increased the likelihood young Ontarians will suffer serious harm from the projected rise in global temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change.[27]

The case was, however, dismissed in April 2023. The presiding judge did not regard failure to set more ambitious climate goals as constituting a violation of the plaintiffs’ Charter rights because the Charter does not impose positive legal obligations upon the government; it merely restrains government from infringing certain rights.[28] Still, despite a disappointing result, the judge’s recognition of the complaint as justiciable and her harsh indictment of the province’s actions were encouraging:

“I find that Ontario’s decision to limit its efforts to an objective that falls severely short of the scientific consensus as to what is required is sufficiently connected to the prejudice that will be suffered by the Applicants and Ontarians should global warming exceed 1.5°C. By not taking steps to reduce [GHGs] 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 with respect to the security of the person.”[29]

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the ruling.

2. La Rose v. His Majesty the King

On December 13, 2023, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal released a unanimous decision to revive the previously-dismissed La Rose case and send it to trial.[30] The lawsuit’s 15 youth plaintiffs, hailing from various jurisdictions and social groups across Canada, sought to hold Canada’s federal government accountable for failure to appropriately address climate change. They allege this failure will bring about substantial harm to Canada’s youth in violation of their s. 7 and s. 15 Charter rights.[31]

As relief, the plaintiffs want the Canadian government to establish a climate recovery plan and undertake comprehensive accounting of Canada’s GHG emissions. They also seek a declaration that the government breached, and continues to breach, its obligation to preserve public trust resources such as air, water, and permafrost.[32]

In the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling, it determined that the plaintiffs deserve a trial to adjudicate whether their s. 7 Charter rights were infringed, but the argument regarding s. 15 rights will not proceed. Justice Rennie wrote that “the argument is novel, but it is not doomed to fail. Courts should be cautious in striking claims at an early stage...the law is not static and unchanging— actions that were deemed hopeless yesterday may succeed tomorrow.”[33]

Judicial Backlash

Last year, the federal government faced legal challenges regarding the constitutionality of its Impact Assessment Act and regulatory 'plastics ban'. In both instances, the courts ruled against the federal government but lacked jurisdiction to strike down the applicable laws.

1. The Impact Assessment Act

The Supreme Court of Canada found a large part of the Impact Assessment Act unconstitutional in an advisory opinion issued on October 13, 2023.[34]

The Act and its regulations establish a two-part project review scheme allowing federal authorities to assess certain projects for their potential social and environmental impact.[35] The court objected to the review scheme segment that aims to regulate major resource and infrastructure projects, such as oil and gas endeavors. The regime established under this aspect of the law allows an Impact Assessment Agency to assess such projects for potential adverse effects on federal lands, neighbouring provinces, Indigenous peoples, and other parties. If substantial adverse effects are found, the Agency can impose restrictions or conditions on the project to minimize negative impacts.

By a 5-2 majority, the Supreme Court regarded the latter part of the scheme as exceeding federal jurisdiction. Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the majority, gave two primary reasons for reaching this conclusion:

• The scheme’s focus on “designated projects” is overly broad; and

• Its broad coverage of all “effects within the federal jurisdiction” allows the federal government to transgress upon provincial jurisdiction to an intolerable extent.

While this decision had no immediate legal effect (as an advisory decision, it is not binding), Environment Minister Guilbeault confirmed that the government is willing to the make the changes necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.[36] However, he stated that any amendments to the legislation “are unlikely to change the outcome” of the review process.

2. Canada’s Federal ‘Plastics Ban’

In November, a federal court quashed Canada’s regulatory ‘plastics ban’ in a lawsuit filed on behalf of several Big Plastic industry members, including Dow Chemical, Nova Chemicals, and Imperial Oil.[37]

Justice Angela Furlanetto in her decision wrote that the federal regulatory order which added plastic manufactured items (PMI) to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s (CEPA) list of toxic substances, was “both unreasonable and unconstitutional.”[38] The Justice further stated that there was insufficient evidence to conclude all PMI are toxic and by including PMI in the list, the Administrator-in-Council/Governor-in-Council (GIC) “acted outside of their authority.”

Justice Furlanetto acknowledged in her ruling that “it is undisputed that plastics are ubiquitous” and that “plastic waste management...and plastic pollution...have been the subject of growing environmental concern and government focus since at least 2016.” However, she regarded the evidence relied upon by the GIC in classifying PMI as a toxic substance as only demonstrating that PMI can become plastic pollution, rather than proving all PMI are toxic.[39]

There are currently federal regulations limiting or banning certain single-use plastic items, which rely on PMI’s classification as a toxic substance.[40] Notwithstanding the court’s decision, the regulations remain in effect. However, the long-term impact of the decision for plastic regulation in Canada remains to be determined.

Immediately following the judgment’s issuance, Alberta Premier Smith and the province’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz released a statement urging the federal government not to appeal the decision, but rather, to reverse its plastic regulation policies.[41] At a press conference on November 20, 2023, federal Environment Minister Guilbeault stated that the federal government intends to appeal.[42]

Conclusion

It is a tough time for those working on Canadian climate solutions. High interest rates have wrought havoc on the cleantech startup and investment space,[43] while inflation, the high cost of living, and a nationwide housing crisis have made climate policy an attractive political scapegoat for right-wing politicians.[44] Faced with these challenging circumstances and brutal poll numbers, the Liberal Government of Canada is making policy concessions, including (temporarily) exempting home heating oil from the fuel charge and moderating their draft Clean Electricity Regulations.[45] Though these concessions seem to have the effect of encouraging rather than mollifying opposition forces.[46]

The state of Canadian climate law is precarious because Canada’s economy is weak. Whether or not the country is technically in recession, Canadians are experiencing a profound 'vibecession' which makes progress towards our net-zero goals more challenging for both the public and private sectors.[47] But climate change is a massive problem that will (or will not) be solved over an extended time horizon. There will be encouraging and discouraging times. Those who can persevere through challenging periods are likely to be in the best position to seize opportunities when conditions improve.

Legal Services

Green Economy Law Professional Corporation provides general and specialized legal services for green business start-ups and non-profit organizations in climate and cleantech, the circular economy, sustainable finance, eco-friendly construction, plant-based foods, and other green economy sectors.

If you’re looking to start a new company, we recommend reviewing our popular Startup Incorporation Packages. And if you run a non-profit, you may be interested in our Non-Profit Counsel Package.

For more information regarding legal services, please contact the firm at 647-725-4308 or via email at info@greeneconomylaw.com. You can also book a consultation via our calendly.

The Authors

Veronica Kunkel is a licensed paralegal working as a contract law clerk with Green Economy Law Professional Corporation. Veronica has experience in many areas of law, including litigation and corporate/commercial law.

Monika Bar is a PhD candidate at McMaster University and a contract law clerk with Green Economy Law Professional Corporation. Previously, she studied law and practiced as a barrister in England and Wales.

Marc Z. Goldgrub is the founding lawyer of Green Economy Law Professional Corporation. He holds a JD from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, and a GPLLM from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.

Green Economy Law Professional Corporation

240 Richmond St. W

Toronto, ON M5V 1V6

647-725-4308

info@greeneconomylaw.com

---

1 Nicole Mortillaro, 2023 was the hottest year on record – by a long shot, CBC (January 9, 2024); see also David Phillips, Canada’s Top 10 Weather Stories of 2023, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (January 16, 2024) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/top-ten-weather- stories/2023.html#toc5).

2 Lucas Casaletto, Michael Talbot and Michelle Mackey, Toronto Air Quality Expected to Improve Today After Ranking Worst in the World, CITYNEWS (June 27, 2023); see also Andy Riga, Wildfire Smoke: Montreal Has World’s Worst Air Quality Today, MONTREAL GAZETTE (June 25, 2023); see also Michael Franklin, Air Quality in Calgary “A Very High Risk” Due to Wildfire Smoke, CTV NEWS CALGARY (May 16, 2023); see also Max Matza, Canada Wildfire Smoke Leaves Millions Under Air Quality Advisory, BBC NEWS (July 18, 2023).

3 Zenebou Sylla and Nouran Salahieh, ‘Biblical Proportions:’ 3 Months’ Worth of Rainfall Floods Nova Scotia, Forcing Evacuations as Crews Search for Missing People, CNN (July 23, 2023).

4 Rachel Aiello, Poilievre Wants a ‘Carbon Tax Election,’ Liberals Say Bring It On, CTV NEWS (November 1, 2023); see also Tony Keller, What If ‘Axe the Tax’ Leaves Most Canadians Worse Off, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (December 12, 2023); see also Editorial Board, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives still don’t have a viable climate plan, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (August 31, 2023).

5 See Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act (S.C. 2023, c.12).

6 See La Rose v Canada, 2020 FC 1008; see also Mathur v His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316.

7 See Bill C-50 (accessible at https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-50/first-reading).

8 Mia Rabson, Liberals Table ‘Sustainable Jobs’ Bill to Back Up Pledge to Help Workers Transition, CTV NEWS (June 15, 2023).

9 See Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (S.C. 2021, c. 22).

10 Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy: Building Resilient Communities and a Strong Economy, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (2023) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/climate-change/climate-plan/national-adaptation-strategy/23062.06%20NAS%20Report_EN_v03.pdf).

11 Plan, Prepare, Act: Government of Canada Launches First National Adaptation Strategy, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (June 27, 2023) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2023/06/plan-prepare-act-government-of-canada-launches-first-national-adaptation-strategy.html).

12 GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ADAPTATION ACTION PLAN (2023) (accessible at https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/eccc/En4-529-2023-eng.pdf).

13 Ibid.

14 A Regulatory Framework to Cap Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (2023) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/climate-change/oil- gas-emissions-cap/Regulatory%20Framework_OG%20Emissions%20Cap_Dec%206_full.pdf).

15 Canada Introduces Framework to Cap Greenhouse Gas Pollution from Oil and Gas Sector, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (December 7, 2023) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate- change/news/2023/12/canada-introduces-framework-to-cap-greenhouse-gas-pollution-from-oil-and-gas- sector.html).

16 Adam Radwanski, With Plans for Oil and Gas Emissions Cap, Ottawa Calls Industry’s Bluff, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (December 8, 2023).

17 Peter Zimonjic, Federal Government Unveils What It Calls a ‘Strict’ Oil and Gas Cap to Curb Emissions, CBC NEWS (December 8, 2023); see also Kate Hodgson, Big Oil Wrote the Script for Canada’s Emission Cap. We Deserve Better, CANADA’S NATIONAL OBSERVER (December 13, 2023).

18 See Zimonjic supra note 17; see also the Judicial Backlash section of this report.

19 See Regulations Amending the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations (SOR/2023-275) (accessible at https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2023/2023-12-20/html/sor-dors275-eng.html).

20 Ibid.

21 See Christopher Nardi & Stuart Thomson, Guilbeault wants to ban gas-powered car sales by 2035. Is that even possible?, NATIONAL POST (December 24, 2023); see also The Canadian Press, Final electric-vehicle mandate to come Tuesday, sales must double by 2026, CTV NEWS (December 18, 2023).

22 See CANADA GAZETTE, PART I, VOLUME 157, NUMBER 33: CLEAN ELECTRICITY REGULATIONS (accessible at https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-08-19/html/reg1-eng.html); see also GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ECONOMIC ANALYSES: REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY APPROACHES TO POLLUTION CONTROL (CHAPTER 4), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (2010) (accessible at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0568-04.pdf).

23 Michelle Bellefontaine, Alberta Invokes Sovereignty Act Over Federal Clean Electricity Regulations, CBC NEWS, (November 27, 2023).

24 See Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act (SA 2022, c A-33.8).

25 David J. Climenhaga, Even Smith admits this Sovereignty Act stuff is mostly performative, RABBLE.CA (November

28, 2023) (accessible at https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/even-smith-admits-this-sovereignty-act-stuff-is-mostly-performative/).

26 Supra note 22.

27 Mathur v His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316 (accessible at https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Reasons-for-Judgment-Mathur-v.-His-Majesty-the-King-in-Right-of-Ontario.pdf).

28 See Positive and Negative Rights, CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES (July 4, 2019) (accessible at https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/positive-and-negative-rights/).

29 Ibid at para 147.

30 La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (accessible at https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca- caf/decisions/en/item/521304/index.do).

31 Ibid. at para 2; see also s. 7 (life, liberty and security of the person) and s. 15 (equal protection) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

32 Supra note 30.

33 Ibid. at para 109.

34 Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1); see also Re: Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (accessible at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc23/2023scc23.html).

35 Physical Activities Regulations (SOR/2019-285).

36 Spencer Van Dyk, Guilbeault ‘Happy to Course Correct’ After SCC Impact Assessment Ruling, But Outcome for Projects Likely No Different, CTV NEWS (October 14, 2023).

37 Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v Canada (Environment and Climate Change) (2023 FC 1511) (accessible at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1511/2023fc1511.html)

38 Ibid; see also Order Adding a Toxic Substance to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (SOR/2021-86).

39 See Responsible Plastic Use Coalition supra note 37.

40 Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations (SOR/2022-138).

41 Danielle Smith, Alberta Wins Again – Federal Liberal Plastic Ban ‘Both Unreasonable and Unconstitutional,’ X (November 16, 2023) (accessible at https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1725269746848031012#).

42 Darren Major, Ottawa to Appeal Court Ruling that Overturned Order Listing Plastics as Toxic Substance, CBC NEWS (November 20, 2023).

43 Eugene Ellmen, High interest rates threaten to delay the energy transition, CORPORATE KNIGHTS (October 31, 2023); see also Siobhan Wagner & Francine Lacqua, Dalio Says End of ‘Free Money’ Is Making Climate Fixes Difficult, BLOOMBERG (December 5, 2023).

44 See Aaron Wherry, The cost of living can't quite obscure the cost of climate change, CBC NEWS (July 23, 2023).

45 Darren Major, Ottawa exempting home heating oil from carbon tax for 3 years, Trudeau says, CBC NEWS (Oct 26, 2023); see also Joel Dryden, Ottawa floats new options for electricity rules that drew ire of Alberta and Saskatchewan, CBC (February 16, 2024).

46 Emma Graney & Marieke Walsh, Premiers demand more carbon-pricing carve-outs after Trudeau climbdown, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (October 27, 2023).

47 See Daniel Johnson, Expect 2024 downturn followed by a rate-cut rebound: economists, BNN BLOOMBERG (January 5, 2024).; see also Paul Haavardsrud, Are we in a ‘vibecession’?, CBC NEWS (December 4, 2022) (accessible at https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-379-cost-of-living/clip/15952671-are-vibecession); see also Net-zero emissions by 2050, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (Date Modified: February 2, 2024) (accessible at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions- 2050.html#).