Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment

On June 15, 2026, youth climate advocates Marie Maltais, Sophia Mathur, and Shirley Barnea, together with Environmental Defence Canada and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court against the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and the Attorney General of Canada. The applicants allege that the Minister failed to comply with mandatory obligations under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (CNZEAA) by not amending Canada's 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) after the federal government repealed, weakened, or substantially altered several of the plan's key emissions reduction measures.

According to the application, the 2030 ERP, adopted in 2022, described the federal measures intended to achieve Canada's statutory target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030. The applicants argue that subsequent policy changes, including the elimination of consumer carbon pricing, the weakening of industrial carbon pricing, the repeal of the electric vehicle sales mandate, the cancellation of the proposed oil and gas emissions cap, delays to methane reduction requirements, and significant changes to clean electricity regulations, mean that the ERP no longer accurately describes the measures the government intends to implement and no longer provides a credible pathway to achieve the 2030 target.

The applicants rely in part on the Minister's 2025 Progress Report, which projected emissions reductions of only 21-28% by 2030 under existing and announced measures. They contend that the Minister was therefore required to initiate the statutory amendment process under the CNZEAA, which would update the ERP and trigger the public consultation process provided for under the Act. The application seeks an order of mandamus requiring the Minister to amend the ERP, or alternatively declarations that the current ERP and the Minister's failure to amend it are unlawful under sections 9(1) and 10(1)(b) of the CNZEAA.