Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

In the Matter of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c. 12

Geography
Year
2019
Document Type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
Decided
Court/admin entity
CanadaAlberta Court of Appeal
Case category
Suits against governments (Global)GHG emissions reduction and trading (Global)Other (Global)
Principal law
CanadaConstitution of Canada
At issue
Whether Canada's carbon pricing act is unconstitutional.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Summary

On February 24, 2020 the Court of Appeal of Alberta found Canada's carbon pricing act unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the act was not a proper exercise of the national government's authority. Alberta filed suit in June 2019, arguing that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c. 12 (the Act) was unconstitutional because it does not fall within the national concern branch of the Parliament's peace, order and good government (POGG) power. The Act imposes a price on greenhouse gases by establishing a "fuel charge" on 22 greenhouse gas-emitting fuels, and an out-put based pricing system for industrial emitters. Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Power Corporation and SaskEnergy, Inc, intervened in support of Alberta’s position. They contended that the “matter” of the Act is properly understood to be the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and that to give the federal government exclusive authority over such a matter under the national concern doctrine would unduly intrude into the provinces’ jurisdiction to regulate their own natural resources. Canada responded that it had the authority to enact the Act under the national concern doctrine, arguing that the Act's "matter" was in truth "the establishment of minimal national standards of stringency for GHG emissions pricing to reduce Canada's nationwide GHG emissions." British Columbia and three nonprofits intervened to support Canada. The court ruled for Alberta, concluding that the Act does not fall within the Canadian government's authority under the national concern doctrine. The court explained that the government cannot use the national concern doctrine to commandeer matters assigned exclusively to the provinces. Ultimately, the court determined that the “matter” of the Act is properly construed as the “regulation of greenhouse gas emissions," and the Act therefore interferes with provincial jurisdiction over natural resources, property and civil rights, local works and undertakings, and direct taxation.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance