By Andrew Roman | Published by C2C
The battle over climate policy has taken on a new face: that of children and youth fronting litigation demanding that courts of law require governments to take stronger action against climate change.
The case of Mathur v Ontario is the most prominent example. Seven minor children and youths (including Indigenous youths) are challenging the Doug Ford government’s recent legislation (Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018) that reduced Ontario’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. They claim the relaxed targets will enable dangerous levels of climate change, thereby violating their rights to life, security of the person and equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The lawsuit underscores a growing trend of youth leveraging courts to force climate action, blending scientific urgency with constitutional arguments. While the case resonates emotionally, framing climate policy as a moral imperative for future generations, it raises thorny questions about judicial authority in democratic governance. Mandating specific emissions targets would overstep courts into policymaking, bypassing elected legislatures tasked with balancing environmental, economic, and social priorities.
Retired litigation lawyer Andrew Roman takes apart Mathur v. Ontario, and argues courts should not rule on the inherently political matter of climate policy.
“If a court were to grant the Mathur applicants’ request, and if Ontario set a new, somewhat more stringent target, dissatisfied activists could simply return to court, arguing that the new target is still inadequate. The judiciary would become the de facto regulator of Ontario’s climate policy.”
Exposing critical flaws in using courts to enforce climate aspirations, Mr. Roman argues that climate change transcends jurisdictional boundaries, rendering provincial emissions legally immaterial to global outcomes (provinces are not a party to international agreements, it is the federal government’s primary responsibility for setting climate policy and legislation for the country). He asserts, the Paris Agreement’s lack of binding targets or enforcement mechanisms undermines claims of a “science-based standard.” Ontario’s defense should have focused on these gaps, he says, stressing democratic governance over judicial mandates and the futility of provincial action absent global coordination.
Mr. Roman urges Ontario to repeal the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (which he describes as “unnecessary”) and let elected leaders—not judges—debate targets. Echoing former Chief Justice Brian Dickson’s warning against trivializing the Charter.
“The Mathur court would do well to heed his warning. The case is not just about Ontario’s emissions targets. It is a test of whether Canadian courts can recognize the limits of adjudication and the realities of science. It is a test of whether our political leaders are willing to defend the interests of all citizens, not just surrender to political expediency.”
Read Andrew Roman’s analysis of Mathur v Ontario in full here at the publisher’s website.