Saskatchewan

Canada

Prince Edward Island

Manitoba

Northwest Territories

Quebec

New Brunswick

Nunavut

Alberta

Newfoundland and Labrador

Ontario

British Columbia

Yukon

Nova Scotia

On March 31, 2023, Climate Justice Saskatoon and seven Saskatchewan residents, aged between 15 and 80, filed an originating application in the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench against the Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower), the Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Saskatchewan. The applicants, represented collectively as Dykstra et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al., challenged the provincial government’s decision to expand natural gas–fired electricity generation, alleging that it violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The claim focuses on the construction of a new natural gas plant near Moose Jaw and plans for another near Lanigan. The applicants contend that these projects, along with the provincial Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Regulations permitting SaskPower to increase its emissions, will exacerbate dangerous climate change. Saskatchewan has the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita in Canada. The applicants argue that the resulting impacts infringe Section 7 rights to life and security of the person, and Section 15 equality rights, particularly for youth, who face disproportionate climate impacts. They seek declarations that these actions are unconstitutional and an order requiring SaskPower to adopt a reasonable target to decarbonize and achieve net-zero emissions as soon as possible.

The application is supported by expert evidence from climate scientists and policy specialists, including Dr. James E. Hansen, who has also testified before the International Court of Justice in its climate change advisory proceedings. The applicants draw on both domestic and international developments, noting parallels with other constitutional climate cases in Canada (such as Mathur and La Rose) and abroad (such as Held v. Montana).

Procedurally, the case has faced preliminary challenges. The Saskatchewan Environmental Society sought leave to intervene but was denied in August 2024, with the possibility to reapply if the main claim survives preliminary motions. Both the Government of Saskatchewan and SaskPower filed applications in September 2023 to strike the pleadings. The applicants amended their originating application on May 31, 2024, to further articulate their Section 7 claims and alleged infringements of the principles of fundamental justice. A special hearing on the strike applications took place on October 4, 2024, and Justice Kuski Basset reserved her decision. As of December 2024, no ruling has been issued.

In April of 2018, the Province of Saskatchewan filed a reference case with the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, asking whether the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) was an unconstitutional intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. The GGPPA was introduced into Parliament on March 28, 2018 as Part 5 of Bill C-74 and became law on June 21, 2018. It established a federal price on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effective as of January 2019, in any province or territory that has not implemented a compliant carbon pricing regime or any province or territory that requests it. The Paris Agreement was among the laws discussed in the preamble of the GGPPA in regard to the need for a carbon pricing mechanism. On May 3, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan ruled that the (GGPPA) is constitutional in whole or in part by a 3-2 majority.

The Court of Appeal rejected Canada’s broader argument that Parliament has jurisdiction over “the cumulative dimensions of GHG emissions” under the national concern branch of its “Peace, Order, and good Government” [POGG] power. The Court found this approach would exceed the constitutional authority of Parliament and intrude too far into areas of Provincial authority and limit Provincial efforts to deal with GHG emissions. However, the Court did rule that Parliament has more narrow authority under the POGG to establish “minimum national standards of price stringency for GHG emissions” because this authority “has the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility required by the law.” Accordingly, the Court ruled that the GGPPA is constitutionally valid under this more narrow POGG authority.

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. In similar cases, the Court of Appeal of Ontario had also ruled the Act constitutional, while the Court of Appeal of Alberta had ruled it unconstitutional. Both were also appealed and the three cases were heard together before the Supreme Court. 

On March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected Saskatchewan and Ontario's appeals and upheld the GGPPA as constitutional in a 6-3 decision. The Court upheld the Act under the POGG power of the constitution, reasoning that climate change was of sufficient national concern to warrant federal jurisdiction, provinces had a constitutional inability to set national GHG emission reduction standards, and the Act's impact on provincial jurisdiction is qualified and limited. The Court wrote that "Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine." Provinces were incapable of addressing the problem in the same way because they could not set a national minimum GHG price, and "a failure to include one province in the scheme would jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada." Further, the Court found that the GGPPA had a limited effect on provincial jurisdiction because it was limited to a narrow regulatory mechanism of pricing, not regulation of all aspects of GHG emissions, and because it only acts as a backstop if provincial pricing is found insufficient. 

Saskatchewan

Recent cases