judgment

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - judgment

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

complaint

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - complaint

reply

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - reply

order

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - order

appeal

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - appeal

La Rose v. His Majesty the King - Other

Filing Year For Action

Fifteen children and youths brought suit against the Queen and Attorney General of Canada in October 2019, alleging that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. The plaintiffs argue that Canada's actions have violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, as well as the rights of present and future Canadian children under the public trust doctrine. They seek declaratory relief and an order requiring the government to adopt a Climate Recovery Plan. 

In dismissing the case, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' claims that Canada's conduct violated their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not justiciable and state no reasonable cause of action. According to the judge, the claims are not justiciable because they allege "an overly broad and unquantifiable number of actions and inactions on the part of the Defendants." Similarly, these claims do not state a reasonable cause of action because they point to broad and diffused conduct by the government and do not identify a particular law that burdens youth. 

The judge found that the plaintiffs' claims that the government's conduct violated the public trust doctrine was justiciable, but similarly found that it stated no reasonable cause of action because the claim was extensive, had no definable limits, and was not consistent with incremental evolutions in the law. 

Plaintiffs are children and youth in Canada who allege that they have been and will continue to be exposed to climate change impacts that interfere with their physical and psychological well being, as well as their ability to make fundamental life choices. The plaintiffs assert that because of their vulnerability and age, they will bear a disproportionate share of the burden imposed by climate change. They claim that Canada has caused, contributed to, and allowed a level of greenhouse gas emissions that is incompatible with a stable climate system; adopted greenhouse gas emissions targets that are inconsistent with the best available science regarding what action is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change; failed to meet its own national greenhouse gas emission targets; and actively participated in and supported the development, expansion, and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of greenhouse gases that is incompatible with a stable climate.  

Plaintiffs seek declarations that defendants have unjustifiably infringed their rights -- and the rights of all present and future children and youth in Canada -- under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the rights to life, liberty and security; and Section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual is equal under the law. Plaintiffs also argue that Canada has a common law and constitutional obligation to protect the integrity of common natural resources that are fundamental to sustaining human life and liberties, and seek a declaration that defendants have failed to discharge their public trust obligations with respect to those resources. Finally, they seek an order requiring defendants to develop and implement an enforceable Climate Recovery Plan that is consistent with Canada's fair share of the global carbon budget necessary to achieve greenhouse gas emissions, and ask the court to retain jurisdiction to ensure the plan is implemented.  

On February 7, 2020 the government filed a statement of defense acknowledging that climate change is real and has a significant effect on Canada, but arguing that the plaintiffs lack public interest standing and that their claims are not justiciable. Plaintiffs responded on August 31. On October 27, in spite of acknowledging that “the negative impact of climate change to the Plaintiffs and all Canadians is significant, both now and looking forward into the future,” Justice Michael D. Manson of the Federal Court of Canada granted the government’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs intend to appeal. On November 24, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals, alleging Justice Manson erred in striking the plaintiffs’ claims. On May 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief arguing that the lower court’s October’s ruling incorrectly struck their claims.

On October 27, 2020, a Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit by Canadian youth against the Canadian government on a pretrial motion to strike for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Federal Court of Appeal on November 24. 

On December 11, 2024,  the Federal Court confirmed the eight-week trial, set to begin October 26, 2026 in Vancouver.

The plaintiffs filed a further amended statement of claim on May 31, 2024, and in December 2024, Canada dropped its motion to strike, after which the claimants filed a new statement of claim on January 13, 2025 and Canada filed a statement of defence. Both sides have reportedly been in discovery until mid-Janurary 2026, including document disclosure, expert reports, and examinations for discovery.

La Rose v. His Majesty the King

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - judgment

Fifteen children and youths brought suit against the Queen and Attorney General of Canada in October 2019, alleging that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. The plaintiffs argue that Canada's actions have violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, as well as the rights of present and future Canadian children under the public trust doctrine. They seek declaratory relief and an order requiring the government to adopt a Climate Recovery Plan. 

In dismissing the case, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' claims that Canada's conduct violated their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not justiciable and state no reasonable cause of action. According to the judge, the claims are not justiciable because they allege "an overly broad and unquantifiable number of actions and inactions on the part of the Defendants." Similarly, these claims do not state a reasonable cause of action because they point to broad and diffused conduct by the government and do not identify a particular law that burdens youth. 

The judge found that the plaintiffs' claims that the government's conduct violated the public trust doctrine was justiciable, but similarly found that it stated no reasonable cause of action because the claim was extensive, had no definable limits, and was not consistent with incremental evolutions in the law. 

Plaintiffs are children and youth in Canada who allege that they have been and will continue to be exposed to climate change impacts that interfere with their physical and psychological well being, as well as their ability to make fundamental life choices. The plaintiffs assert that because of their vulnerability and age, they will bear a disproportionate share of the burden imposed by climate change. They claim that Canada has caused, contributed to, and allowed a level of greenhouse gas emissions that is incompatible with a stable climate system; adopted greenhouse gas emissions targets that are inconsistent with the best available science regarding what action is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change; failed to meet its own national greenhouse gas emission targets; and actively participated in and supported the development, expansion, and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of greenhouse gases that is incompatible with a stable climate.  

Plaintiffs seek declarations that defendants have unjustifiably infringed their rights -- and the rights of all present and future children and youth in Canada -- under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the rights to life, liberty and security; and Section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual is equal under the law. Plaintiffs also argue that Canada has a common law and constitutional obligation to protect the integrity of common natural resources that are fundamental to sustaining human life and liberties, and seek a declaration that defendants have failed to discharge their public trust obligations with respect to those resources. Finally, they seek an order requiring defendants to develop and implement an enforceable Climate Recovery Plan that is consistent with Canada's fair share of the global carbon budget necessary to achieve greenhouse gas emissions, and ask the court to retain jurisdiction to ensure the plan is implemented.  

On February 7, 2020 the government filed a statement of defense acknowledging that climate change is real and has a significant effect on Canada, but arguing that the plaintiffs lack public interest standing and that their claims are not justiciable. Plaintiffs responded on August 31. On October 27, in spite of acknowledging that “the negative impact of climate change to the Plaintiffs and all Canadians is significant, both now and looking forward into the future,” Justice Michael D. Manson of the Federal Court of Canada granted the government’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs intend to appeal. On November 24, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals, alleging Justice Manson erred in striking the plaintiffs’ claims. On May 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief arguing that the lower court’s October’s ruling incorrectly struck their claims.

On October 27, 2020, a Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit by Canadian youth against the Canadian government on a pretrial motion to strike for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Federal Court of Appeal on November 24. 

In December 2023, the Federal Court of Appeals decided that the case can go to trial. The case will proceed to an eight-week trial beginning on October 26, 2026. 


La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - appeal

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - order

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - reply

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - complaint