Historic Youth Climate Lawsuit Against Canadian Government Begins Trial in Vancouver
Fifteen youth plaintiffs are challenging the Canadian federal government in a landmark climate trial in Vancouver, arguing that inadequate emissions targets violate their Charter rights. The case, filed in 2019, marks the first full court hearing of its kind in Canada.
Trial hearings for a climate lawsuit against the Canadian federal government began this week in Vancouver, following a seven-year wait since the case was filed in 2019. The lawsuit, launched by 15 youth applicants, argues that government inaction on climate change violates their rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case was initially dismissed by the Federal Court but was sent back for a full hearing by the Federal Court of Appeal. This marks the first time such a climate lawsuit will receive a full hearing in court in Canada, carrying potential precedent-setting implications globally.
The plaintiffs contend that the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act places the country on an emissions trajectory inconsistent with a safe and livable future. As a remedy, the applicants are asking the court to declare insufficient climate action a rights violation and require the government to develop a new climate plan based on the latest scientific evidence. The youth plaintiffs have cited exposure to climate harms including wildfire smoke, extreme heat waves, and flooding.
Among the applicants is Sadie Vipond, who experienced the 2013 Calgary floods at age seven and joined the lawsuit at age 13. She is currently studying environmental science at the University of British Columbia.
The applicants have called eight expert witnesses, including two lead authors for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The government is expected to present four expert witnesses during the third week of hearings.
The federal government does not dispute that climate science is real but argues that Canada's laws are not directly harming the youth plaintiffs. A key legal debate centers on whether Section 7 of the Charter imposes a "positive obligation" on the government to proactively protect Canadians from climate harms. The government disputes that such a positive constitutional obligation exists, while the plaintiffs assert that Section 7 requires proactive protection.
Closing arguments are scheduled for February, following a break after the government's witness presentations.