British Columbia

Canada

Yukon

Nunavut

Nova Scotia

Prince Edward Island

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Newfoundland and Labrador

Manitoba

Ontario

Northwest Territories

Quebec

New Brunswick

NGOs and residents brought claims that FortisBC’s marketing of gas and renewable natural gas misleads customers about climate impacts — the suit alleges deceptive marketing and seeks remedies. The case has generated regulatory attention given national focus on corporate environmental claims.

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 argued 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 failed 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 asked 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.

In its response to the petition, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy argued that the 2021 Report met 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.

On January 17, 2023, Justice Basran of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the Sierra Club of BC’s petition. The Court first held that Sierra Club of BC’s challenge was justiciable and reviewed the Minister’s compliance for reasonableness. It found the Climate Change Accountability Act requires the Minister to report plans toward all targets but mandates detailed emissions estimates only for the current year and the next two years, not for each target year. The Court, however, accepted that the CleanBC plan, the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, supporting materials, and modelling together constituted reasonable compliance, including for the 2025 and oil and gas sector targets. While the materials showed BC was not on track to meet all targets, the Court held that the statute does not require the Minister to provide the detailed quantitative analysis Sierra Club of BC sought for 2040 and 2050. The Court also noted that the Climate Change Accountability Act does not impose a legal obligation to achieve the targets or penalties for missing them.

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 January 17, 2019, 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.

Following conviction, the activists appealed. The case reached the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA). On appeal, in a judgment dated Dcember 1st, 2020, the BCCA considered whether the necessity defence should have been permitted. The BCCA rejected arguments based on necessity and constitutional rights, finding that climate change concerns, while significant, did not create a legal justification for breaching court orders. The court noted that the necessity defense requires imminent peril and proportional response, which were not established, and that the Charter claims were framed too broadly to be justiciable. The BCCA concluded that the appellants had reasonable, lawful alternatives, such as public advocacy, lawful protest outside the injunction area, civil litigation, or political and democratic processes. Because a reasonable legal alternative existed, the necessity defence was unavailable. The BCCA therefore dismissed the appeals, and affirmed the convictions.

Subsequent proceedings,  reflected in a long docket history (including many BCSC and BCCA entries between 2019 and 2023, concerned sentencing, multiple contemnor individuals, and enforcement issues. The court imposed escalating sentences over the following years, to deter further breaches, emphasizing the rule of law and the enforceability of court orders.

Geography

British Columbia

Recent cases