|
Environment (Fed) - Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (CNZEAA). 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 briefly outlines a statutory basis of the claim grounded in the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act:[4] The Dini Ze’ launched their claim as a representative proceeding under Rule 114 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, contending that Canada has contributed to climate change in a way that poses a “threat to their identity, to their culture, to their relationship with the land and the life on it, and to their food security” (Dini Ze’s statement of claim at para. 2). They say the legislative response to climate change and executive actions exacerbate the threat and violate their protections and rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. They say that the legislation and regulations authorizing the current levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, along with the continued and past approvals of GHG-emitting projects, result in Canada breaching its obligations under international law in the Paris Agreement, 12 December 2015, U.N.T.S. 3156 (p. 79) (Paris Agreement). This constitutes a breach of domestic law, as the targets in the Paris Agreement have been enshrined in section 7 of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, S.C. 2021, c. 22. In addition, they argue that Parliament has exceeded the general power under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5 (the Constitution Act, 1867) to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the country (the general power).
|
