La Rose v. His Majesty the King

On October 25, 2019, fifteen children and youth from across Canada filed an action in Federal Court against Canada and the Attorney General of Canada alleging that the federal government's conduct contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs alleged that climate change was already harming their physical and psychological well-being and would disproportionately burden children and future generations. They also alleged that Canada had breached obligations under a proposed public trust doctrine to protect common natural resources.

The original claim challenged a broad range of federal conduct, including Canada's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, the adoption of emissions-reduction targets allegedly inconsistent with climate science, its failure to meet previous emissions targets, and federal support for fossil-fuel development. The plaintiffs sought declarations that Canada's conduct violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter and its asserted public trust obligations. They also sought an order requiring Canada to develop and implement a Climate Recovery Plan consistent with Canada's share of the global carbon budget and asked the Court to retain jurisdiction over implementation.

Canada moved to strike the claim. On October 27, 2020, the Federal Court granted the motion and struck the action without leave to amend. The Court held that the plaintiffs' Charter claims were not justiciable because they challenged an overly broad and diffuse range of government conduct rather than sufficiently discrete state action capable of constitutional review. It further held that the section 7 and section 15 claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Although the Court considered the existence of a public trust doctrine to be a justiciable legal question, it concluded that the doctrine pleaded by the plaintiffs had no reasonable prospect of recognition under Canadian law.

The plaintiffs appealed. On December 13, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The Court held that the section 7 claims were justiciable and should not have been dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success merely because they raised complex questions concerning climate policy or potentially positive state obligations. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had identified federal legislation and Orders in Council capable of providing a legal framework for constitutional review and that a causal relationship between federal action and alleged harms to life, liberty, or security of the person was not manifestly incapable of proof.

The Federal Court of Appeal nevertheless agreed that the section 7 claim, as originally pleaded, was too broad and diffuse to permit constitutional adjudication. It therefore struck the section 7 claim with leave to amend so that the plaintiffs could identify with greater precision the legislation and government conduct alleged to cause the constitutional deprivation. The Court upheld the dismissal, without leave to amend, of the plaintiffs' section 15 claim and their public trust claim.

Following the appellate decision, the plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim on May 31, 2024. The amended pleading narrowed the case to a section 7 Charter claim and identified specific federal laws and measures that the plaintiffs allege authorize, facilitate, or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and thereby create or exacerbate risks to their life, liberty, and security of the person.

On December 11, 2024, the Federal Court issued an order setting the matter for trial beginning October 26, 2026, in Vancouver. After a further case-management order, the plaintiffs filed a further amended statement of claim on January 13, 2025. The case has since proceeded through pretrial discovery and expert disclosure. Trial is scheduled to begin on October 26, 2026.