British Columbia

Canada

Prince Edward Island

Manitoba

Northwest Territories

Quebec

New Brunswick

Nunavut

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Newfoundland and Labrador

Ontario

Yukon

Nova Scotia

In this case, the petitioner, Sierra Club of BC, is challenging the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s (government of British Columbia) 2021 Climate Change Accountability Report (the “2021 Report”) on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements under the Climate Change Accountability Act. The Act requires the government of British Columbia to publish annual reports on, among other things, its plan to continue progress toward reaching its climate targets set out in the Act. 

Sierra Club of BC is arguing that the Minister’s 2021 Report does not meet the requirements of the Climate Change Accountability Act as it does not include a plan to continue progress toward the 2025, 2040 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets referred to in the Act. Moreover, the petition alleges that the 2021 Report also fails to include a plan to continue progress toward the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target set for the oil and gas sector. Sierra Club of BC is asking the British Columbia Supreme Court to quash and set aside the 2021 Report because of an error of law, as it allegedly does not meet the requirements under the Climate Change Accountability Act, and remit the 2021 Report to the Minister for reconsideration. Finally, Sierra Club of BC submits that it has public interest standing and the issue it seeks to raise with the Court is justiciable. Therefore, it submits that it has standing to seek judicial review of the 2021 Report. In its response to the petition, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy submits that the 2021 Report meets the requirements set out under the Climate Change Accountability Act as it contains plans to continue progress toward the emissions reduction targets set out in that Act. 

The Minister alleges that the substance of Sierra Club of BC’s petition is not that the 2021 Report is devoid of plans, but that Sierra Club of BC is not satisfied with the content, detail and/or sufficiency of the plans set out in the 2021 Report. As such, the Minister submits that the petitioner’s challenge to the adequacy of the 2021 Report is not a justiciable issue. Therefore, Sierra Club of BC does not have standing. The Minister also submits that the Court should deny the relief sought by Sierra Club of BC without a full hearing on the merits for unreasonable delay, given that the petition was brought more than 5 months after the 2021 Report was issued. 

Appeal from the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a Mines Inspector’s decision to issue a permit to operate a rock quarry. The applicants questioned whether the decision was unreasonable because the Mines Inspector failed to consider the climate change impacts of the proposed quarry under the Mines Act. The appellant contends that climate change is such an important issue that the Mines Inspector’s failure to consider it constituted a fettering of his discretion, resulting in an unreasonable decision. 

The reviewing judge held that the Mines Inspector had the discretion to consider the impacts of climate change but his failure to do so did not render his decision unreasonable. The request for interim injunctive relief was dismissed. While the Mines Inspector’s statement of relevance was overly broad, his interpretation of the factors he is required to consider under the statutory scheme was reasonable. The broad discretion granted to the decision maker under the Mines Act imposes no mandatory requirements and the Mines Inspector provided extensive reasons for which he assessed the factors he considered relevant to the application before him. On June 14, 2021, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the claimant's appeal. 

On November 10, 2021 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant's appeal of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia's decision, with costs assigned to the defendant, O.K. Industries Ltd. 

A number of people were convicted for acting to stop construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in Canada. Two defendants sought leave to raise the common law defense of necessity and for permission to call experts at their trial to discuss climate change and the greenhouse gas consequences of oil sands extraction in Canada. They argued that the pipeline, which is owned by the Government of Canada, constitutes state action threatening citizens' right to a stable climate as protected by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

On December 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the applications. The court concluded that the applicants had not shown that climate change poses an imminent threat as required for the necessity defense. The case is currently on appeal before the Court of Appeals of British Columbia. 

British Columbia

Recent cases