Canada

Climate change litigation is a relatively new legal field in Canada. Up until 2019 the federal government had been quiet on climate issues in policy, abiding by international agreements without instating independent measures. Much of this is due to Canada's economic reliance on the energy sector. Traditional energy makes up 10.2% of national GDP creating a complex dichotomy between abandoning fossil fuels in favor of the environment and supporting finite energy resource mining in favor of the economy. In 2019 the Government of Canada declared a national climate emergency, formally acknowledging the importance of mitigating climate change. Climate litigation typically takes the form of suits against the government, both provincial and federal, or suits against energy companies. Commonly, s.7 of the Charter is invoked which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of persons.

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain any clause guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment. However, five of the 13 provinces and territories have broke away from this federal standard and enacted their own respective environmental-guarantees in their provincial charters. A common theme of Canadian climate change litigation is justiciability. In multiple suits against the government the court has ruled in the government's favor when the suit alleged that the government failed to uphold standards set by environmental treaties and statutes signed. It is the court's opinion that the judiciary branch has no role in reviewing federal or provincial policy, and suits alleging insufficient action are un-justiciable.

Cases
The following is a list of significant federal and provincial climate litigation cases in Canada: An environmental NGO applied to bring a class action suit on behalf of Quebec residents aged 35 and other, arguing that their human rights had been violated by the Canadian governments failure to act on climate change. The case was dismissed on the grounds the a class action lawsuit was incorrectly used as the vessel of complaint. A Canadian oil company challenged a government regulation that at least two percent of the content of diesel fuels be renewable, even for the oil the company produces for its own use. The court dismissed the energy company's complaint and upheld the regulation. Two individuals were arrested in August of 2018 for ignoring a court-ordered injunction in protest of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project in British Columbia. Both defendants sought to invoke the defense of necessity, arguing that the proposed pipeline expansion would cause irreparable harm to the climate. The defendant's case was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
 * ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada
 * Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada
 * Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Misavair
 * Labrador Inuit Ass'n v. Newfoundland

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. A Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. An environmental NGO sought a declaration from the court that the government had failed to meet the legal requirements of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. The court ruled that this case is not justiciable, as the court should have no role in reviewing the reasonableness of the government's response to Canada's political commitments. Two houses of the Wet’suwet’en indigenous group filed a legal challenge alleging that the Canadian government's approach to climate change has violated their constitutional and human rights. The court dismissed the claim and found that the case was not justiciable. An environmental NGO filed suit against the federal government alleging a failure to properly assess the risks of exploratory drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The applicant's motion for an interim order to halt the drilling was dismissed on the grounds that permanent and irreparable harm could not be shown. Provincial governments brought suit to the federal government in complaint of a federal policy to implement national carbon-pricing standards. The case was dismissed with the court ruling that the federal government indeed had the right to impose mandatory minimum carbon-pricing policies.
 * La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen
 * Friends of the Earth v. The Governor in Council and Others
 * Lho'imggin et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen
 * Ecology Action, et al. v. Minister of Environment and Climate Change
 * Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

Organizations

 * Friends of the Earth/Les Amis de la Terre
 * Greenpeace Canada
 * West Coast Environmental Law
 * The Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund (EDRF) is a program under West Coast Environmental Law which provides grants to British Columbians who have organized to protect their communities and their environment. Funds from the EDRF allow Indigenous peoples, community groups and individuals to hire lawyers and experts at reduced rates, and work collaboratively with them to resolve disputes in negotiations, mediation, in court or before government tribunals.