The case of Mathur v. Ontario represents the first case in Ontario in which the court ruled that climate change may threaten fundamental rights under the Constitutional Law.

By Leon Qiu

Case Information:

Court(s): The Superior Court of Justice in Ontario

Dissenting Judgment: No

Filing Date: 25 November 2019

Last Update: 14 April 2023

Status: Motion to dismiss denied

ISSUES

The Court has to decide whether to strike out an application on the ground that it has no reasonable prospect of success. 

MATERIAL FACTS/BACKGROUND

The Applicants, seven young people, sought declaratory and mandatory orders concerning Ontario’s target and plan for reducing greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions by 2030. They brought a lawsuit against the government (the ‘Defendants’) for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by abdicating its responsibility to address climate change. In response, the Attorney General of Ontario (‘Attorney General’) maneuvered to strike out this application on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.[1] The case then went to the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario.

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

1. The Applicants argued that the target set by the Attorney General  was ‘insufficiently ambitious.’[2] In particular, the Applicants claimed that Ontario is not on track to resolve potential ‘catastrophic climate change.’[3] Ontario’s 2030 GHG reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels is less ambitious than previously adopted targets (under the Paris Agreement) and, as such, is inadequate.[4]

2. The Applicants argued that a failure to set targets and plans that are ‘stringent’ and ‘exacting’ enough is an infringement of the constitutional rights of youth and future generations, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (“the Charter”) [5]. They associated this inadequacy with a failure to prevent catastrophic climate change, which poses serious risks to the health and wellbeing of the Applicants’ generation as well as future generations of Ontarians.[6] The Attorney General had therefore violated the Applicants’ following rights:
   1. Constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person;[7]
   2. Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.[8]

The Defendant’s Arguments:

The Attorney General moved to dismiss the Application. They claimed that, among other things, the Application should be struck out under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 on the ground that ‘the Application discloses no reasonable cause of action.’[9]  

THE OUTCOME

The Court dismissed the Attorney General’s motion, because ‘it is not plain and obvious that the Application discloses no reasonable cause of action or that it has no reasonable prospect of success.’[10] 

In particular, the Court reasoned that: 

1. the relevant targets and plans are reviewable by the courts;[11] 
2. the facts pleaded in the Application are ‘capable of being scientifically proven;’[12]
3. this Application is prima facie justiciable;[13] and 
4. the Applicants have standing on behalf of their and future generations.[14]

Please find the full judgment here.

Last edited on 04 September 2022; with thanks to the case editor, Bjorn Lambrenos. 

Last edited on 22 September 2023 by Beatrijs Gelders.

REFERENCES
[1] Mathur v. Ontario 2020 ONSC 6918 1; Rule 21, Rules Of Civil Procedure (RRO 1990, Regulation 194).
[2] Mathur v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 6918 1, p. 1.
[3] Ibid., p. 30.
[4] Ibid., para. 13.
[5] Ibid., p. 1; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
[6] Mathur v. Ontario, para. 89.
[7] Ibid., para 143; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, s. 7.
[8] Mathur v. Ontario, para. 172; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, s. 15.
[9] Rules of Civil Procedure; Mathur v. Ontario, para. 32.
[10] Mathur v. Ontario, para. 267.
[11] Ibid., para. 71.
[12] Ibid., para. 102.
[13] Ibid., para. 140.
[14] Ibid., para. 253.