In this blog post, PhD student Erin Dobbelsteyn draws connections between the teachings of Braiding Sweetgrass and sustainability, and explores the ways in which the expression of these principles in legal systems and theories might assist in achieving global sustainability.

Lawyers, legal scholars, environmental advocacy groups and affected persons continue to push the legal envelope in Canada through climate litigation, intending to address the causes and consequences of climate change through the courts in instances where governmental and societal inaction has failed us. One such case in Canada is La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen, a lawsuit filed by 15 youth across the country who are facing various adverse impacts of climate change and are challenging the Government of Canada to do more to protect their rights and mitigate these impacts.

There are currently four climate litigation cases against Canadian governments that are set to be heard in 2020. Each of these cases raises novel and challenging issues for litigants, governments, lawyers, and judges to grapple with, including: justiciability of policy-laden decisions; positive v. negative obligations under the Charter; establishing causation; and effective remedies. Hoping to provide some prescient insight for the year ahead, this blog post summarizes these cases and explores the potential impact that Urgenda may have on Canadian climate litigation.

On June 28, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its opinion on the constitutionality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (i.e. the federal government’s carbon-pricing framework).

Like with the recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision, project team member Nathalie Chalifour has succinctly outlined her top ten takeaways from the decision (originally posted to Twitter, and reproduced here).

On May 3, 2019, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal issued its opinion on the constitutionality of the federal government’s carbon-pricing framework. A 3-2 majority of the court agreed that Ottawa can impose a gradually rising floor price on greenhouse gas emissions across the country, confirming the consensus view of Canada’s legal experts. While the court’s opinion is only an advisory one and is confined to Saskatchewan (the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision is next, and Saskatchewan has already filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada), its recognition of climate change as a major threat requiring urgent political action is welcome.

Here, project team member Nathalie Chalifour succinctly outlines her top ten takeaways from the decision.