Dykstra et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al.

On March 31, 2023, Climate Justice Saskatoon and seven Saskatchewan residents, aged between 15 and 80, filed an originating application in the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench against the Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower), the Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Saskatchewan. The applicants, represented collectively as Dykstra et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al., challenged the provincial government’s decision to expand natural gas–fired electricity generation, alleging that it violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On October 10, 2025, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench granted the Government of Saskatchewan and SaskPower’s motions to strike the lawsuit. In her judgment, H. A. Kuski Bassett found that through the remedies sought, the applicants asked the Court to “direct the enactment of new laws and engage in ongoing policy oversight, which is in essence court-directed legislative reform.” To do so would “require the Court to disregard the time-honoured separation of powers in our constitutional democracy in a manner that exceeds its institutional capacity and legitimacy” (para. 118). Drawing on Tanudjaja, Environnement Jeunesse, LaRose, and Mathur, the Court stressed the limits of judicial “capacities and legitimacy” in supervising climate policy. After analyzing these principles, the Court applied the “plain and obvious” test and ultimately struck the applicants’ claim, finding it non-justiciable and failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. She added that even though “the Claim [was] not justiciable, the material importance of protecting the environment remains. This decision is not to be interpreted as suggesting the Respondents are immune from constitutional scrutiny in appropriate circumstances regarding their climate change response. However, the concept of justiciability is a foundational component in Canada’s constitutional democracy that cannot be overlooked even when the subject matter raises crucial issues from a local, national, or international scale” (para. 120). The claim against the directors was also struck as improperly pleaded, since the directors were not named as respondents in the action, and in any event because it had no reasonable chance of success (para. 126). As of November 2025, claimants have indicated reviewing their options in view of an appeal or further legal action. The claim focuses on the construction of a new natural gas plant near Moose Jaw and plans for another near Lanigan. The applicants contend that these projects, along with the provincial Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Regulations permitting SaskPower to increase its emissions, will exacerbate dangerous climate change. Saskatchewan has the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita in Canada. The applicants argue that the resulting impacts infringe Section 7 rights to life and security of the person, and Section 15 equality rights, particularly for youth, who face disproportionate climate impacts. They seek declarations that these actions are unconstitutional and an order requiring SaskPower to adopt a reasonable target to decarbonize and achieve net-zero emissions as soon as possible. The application is supported by expert evidence from climate scientists and policy specialists, including Dr. James E. Hansen, who has also testified before the International Court of Justice in its climate change advisory proceedings. The applicants draw on both domestic and international developments, noting parallels with other constitutional climate cases in Canada (such as Mathur and La Rose) and abroad (such as Held v. Montana). Procedurally, the case has faced preliminary challenges. The Saskatchewan Environmental Society sought leave to intervene but was denied in August 2024, with the possibility to reapply if the main claim survives preliminary motions. Both the Government of Saskatchewan and SaskPower filed applications in September 2023 to strike the pleadings. The applicants amended their originating application on May 31, 2024, to further articulate their Section 7 claims and alleged infringements of the principles of fundamental justice. A special hearing on the strike applications took place on October 4, 2024, and Justice Kuski Basset reserved her decision. On October 10, 2025, Justice Basset decided that the Charter claims were not justiciable and were struck without leave to amend. The appeal of this decision is currently pending, with the appellants filing their factum on 15 January 2026.