|
Charter - Causation. Mathur v. Ontario
In Mathur v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a novel applicant's appeal, here as to whether "the alleged failure of Ontario to comply with its voluntarily imposed statutory obligations to combat climate change amount to a breach of the appellants’ ss. 7 and 15 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Here the court consider 'causation' in the Charter context:[61] The onus in each case is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. A claimant, in either a s. 7 or a s. 15 Charter claim, does not need to prove that the impugned state action is the only or the dominant cause of the prejudice suffered: Bedford, at para. 76; Sharma, at para. 45. In adverse impact claims, the inquiry at the first step of the s. 15(1) test is “not a preliminary merits screen” or “an onerous hurdle designed to weed out claims on technical bases”, but rather serves to exclude claims that have nothing do with substantive equality: Alliance, at para. 26; see also Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, 2020 SCC 38, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 629, at para. 41. A claimant’s evidentiary burden in proving that a law has caused a disproportionate impact “cannot be unduly difficult to meet”: Sharma, at para. 49. . La Rose v. Canada
In La Rose v. Canada (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a political plaintiffs' appeal from a trial court's striking of pleadings, here where aboriginal and youths sued the government for causing - and failing to mitigate - climate change:
In this quote the court comments on Charter rights 'causation', here in a Charter s.7 context:[90] Claimants must also demonstrate a causal connection between the impugned action or law and the prejudice they have suffered (Bedford at para. 75). However, claimants need not demonstrate that the state alone is accountable for the prejudice they have suffered (Bedford at para. 76):A sufficient causal connection standard does not require that the impugned government action or law be the only or the dominant cause of the prejudice suffered by the claimant, and is satisfied by a reasonable inference, drawn on a balance of probabilities (Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44, at para. 21). A sufficient causal connection is sensitive to the context of the particular case and insists on a real, as opposed to a speculative, link.
|
