Case Law Database
La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen
| Date of Application: | Fri, 25 Oct 2019 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Wed, 13 Dec 2023 |
| Decision Making Body: | Federal Court of Appeal, Canada |
| Law Applied: | Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Constitution of Canada |
| Keywords: | Right to life, survival, development, Equality, Cultural rights, Public trust doctrine, Future generations |
Pre-trial: Cecilia La Rose & others v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada & another 2020 FC 1008 (CanLII)
Pre-trial appeal: Cecilia La Rose & others v His Majesty the King in right of Canada & another 2023 FCA 241
At Issue: Canadian youth sought declarations that Canada violated their rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and an order requiring the government to implement a Climate Recovery Plan.
Summary: On October 27, 2020, a Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit by Canadian youth against the Canadian government on a pretrial motion to strike for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Federal Court of Appeal on November 24.
Fifteen children and youths brought suit against the Queen and Attorney General of Canada in October 2019, alleging that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. The plaintiffs argue that Canada's actions have violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, as well as the rights of present and future Canadian children under the public trust doctrine. They seek declaratory relief and an order requiring the government to adopt a Climate Recovery Plan.
In dismissing the case, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' claims that Canada's conduct violated their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not justiciable and state no reasonable cause of action. According to the judge, the claims are not justiciable because they allege "an overly broad and unquantifiable number of actions and inactions on the part of the Defendants." Similarly, these claims do not state a reasonable cause of action because they point to broad and diffused conduct by the government and do not identify a particular law that burdens youth.
The judge found that the plaintiffs' claims that the government's conduct violated the public trust doctrine was justiciable, but similarly found that it stated no reasonable cause of action because the claim was extensive, had no definable limits, and was not consistent with incremental evolutions in the law.
Plaintiffs are children and youth in Canada who allege that they have been and will continue to be exposed to climate change impacts that interfere with their physical and psychological well being, as well as their ability to make fundamental life choices. The plaintiffs assert that because of their vulnerability and age, they will bear a disproportionate share of the burden imposed by climate change. They claim that Canada has caused, contributed to, and allowed a level of greenhouse gas emissions that is incompatible with a stable climate system; adopted greenhouse gas emissions targets that are inconsistent with the best available science regarding what action is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change; failed to meet its own national greenhouse gas emission targets; and actively participated in and supported the development, expansion, and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of greenhouse gases that is incompatible with a stable climate.
Plaintiffs seek declarations that defendants have unjustifiably infringed their rights -- and the rights of all present and future children and youth in Canada -- under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the rights to life, liberty and security; and Section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual is equal under the law. Plaintiffs also argue that Canada has a common law and constitutional obligation to protect the integrity of common natural resources that are fundamental to sustaining human life and liberties, and seek a declaration that defendants have failed to discharge their public trust obligations with respect to those resources. Finally, they seek an order requiring defendants to develop and implement an enforceable Climate Recovery Plan that is consistent with Canada's fair share of the global carbon budget necessary to achieve greenhouse gas emissions, and ask the court to retain jurisdiction to ensure the plan is implemented.
On February 7, 2020 the government filed a statement of defense acknowledging that climate change is real and has a significant effect on Canada, but arguing that the plaintiffs lack public interest standing and that their claims are not justiciable. Plaintiffs responded on August 31. On October 27, in spite of acknowledging that “the negative impact of climate change to the Plaintiffs and all Canadians is significant, both now and looking forward into the future,” Justice Michael D. Manson of the Federal Court of Canada granted the government’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs intend to appeal. On November 24, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals, alleging Justice Manson erred in striking the plaintiffs’ claims. On May 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief arguing that the lower court’s October’s ruling incorrectly struck their claims.
On 13 December 2023 the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court a quo and ruled that the matter should proceed to trial to determine whether the children’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being sufficiently protected. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to amend their claim.
On 11 December 2024, after the State confirmed that they will not file a motion to strike, the Federal Court set the dates for the trial to be 26 October 2026 for 8 weeks
La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
Complaint (25 October 2019)
Pre-trial order dismissing complaint (27 October 2020)
Pre-trial appeal order allowing complaint to proceed to trial (13 December 2023)
Trial: To be heard from 26 October 2026.
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 31. Right to rest, play, leisure and participate in cultural activities (CRC Article 31)
The complainants’ case is based on section 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) and 15 (the right to equality before the law) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The equivalent in the CRC is article 2, and 6.
The complainants also reference cultural rights (CRC article 31).
The pre-trial court decided to dismiss the complainants’ claim on both section 7 and 15.
The judge considering the appeal of the pre-trial court’s decision, also dismisses the section 15 equality claim, but allows the section 7 claim to proceed to trial. This court also acknowledges that climate change leads to loss of culture.
Cited CRC articles
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
The complainants refer directly to the UNCRC, and specifically the right to life, survival, and development.
The judge considering the appeal of the pre-trial court’s decision refers to General Comment 26, which he says refers to violations of the right to life, survival, development (the exact right in article 6 CRC), pointing out that there is a trend toward acceptance of intergenerational equity.
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
Each child complainant’s personal experiences are recorded in paras 94 – 221 of the complaint.
Intergenerational rights
The complainants make an argument based on intergenerational inequality (based on section 15) because future children will bear a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change.
The judge considering the appeal of the pre-trial court’s decision refers to CRC General Comment 26, which he says refers to violations of the right to life, survival, development (the exact right in article 6 CRC), pointing out that there is a trend toward acceptance of intergenerational equity. However, they find that intergenerational equity does not fall within the ambit of section 15 (equality clause) and dismisses that claim.
Future generations
The complainants say that future generations will bear the brunt of climate related harms, and yet they have not ability to represent themselves. The complainants therefore claim to act on behalf of future generations in order to protect their interests, including their cultural heritage. The applicants rely on the public trust doctrine, saying that natural resources must be preserved for future generations.
The judge considering the appeal of the pre-trial dismissal agrees with the initial court that the public trust doctrine claim should fail, for being too broad.
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Decision pending
Decision pending.
Decision to allow matter to proceed to trial granted on 13 December 2023.
Trial to be heard from 26 October 2026.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Not sure
Trial to be heard.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Legal representatives:
Vancouver, Canada
Victoria, Canada
The complainants are supported by these NGOs:
Eugene, USA
Vancouver, Canada
The Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation (CELL) (an educational partner using this lawsuit to train the next generation of public interest lawyers).
Victoria, Canada
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Age range of litigants
- 8-12
- 13-17
- 18-25
Number of children or youth involved
15