Category: Keywords

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Norway Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life

The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was filed on 26 March 2021 by The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign (or Besteforeldrenes klimaaksjon, see the NGO’s website here, which counted 5600 members at the time and aims to counter anthropogenic climate change) along with four individuals, who were then aged 29, 32, 80, and 9 months. According to the Court’s press release, the case relates to the same domestic proceedings as the subject of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21). Before the Court, the applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to an effective remedy, the prohibition of discrimination and the right to property). They rights, they argue, have been infringed by the Norwegian authorities’ petroleum activities in the Barents Sea in the Arctic Ocean. They describe, in particular, the disastrous effects of rising temperature levels on Norway, invoking the prevention and precautionary principles, inter-generational equity and Norway’s duty of care.

The applicants argue that there is a “real and imminent threat” facing them as Norwegian oil production contributes to the reaching of tipping points in the global climate system. On the Court’s victim status requirements (standing), they argue that these criteria must be interpreted in harmony with the priniciple of inter-generational equity, and invoke both the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement to argue that current generations have a duty to act as stewards of the planet for future generations.

This case has not yet been communicated by the Court at the time of writing. It had been announced, however, that the case has been adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases (i.e. KlimaSeniorinnen, Duarte Agostinho, and Carême; see “Status of case” below). More information on the case will be published as it becomes available.

Date filed:
26 March 2021

Status of case:
Adjourned until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases pending before it (see the ECtHR’s press release here).

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway, application no. 19026/21, filed on 26 March 2021 (not yet communicated).

More information:
For the NGO’s press release on the application (in Norwegian), click here.

For further information on the domestic proceedings, see Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21).

For the full standardized application form submitted to the ECtHR, see here.

Last updated:
16 March 2023.

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Children and young people EU/European Court of Justice Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Victim status

Armando Carvalho and Others v. Parliament 

Summary:
This case, also known as ‘The People’s Climate Case’, was brought by families from different Member States of the European Union. The families, who are active in the agricultural or tourism sectors, brought the case to the General Court of the European Union together with a Swedish association representing young indigenous people. They claimed that the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that had been laid down by a legislative package from 2018 were not far-reaching enough. They demanded stricter measures: the aim should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 – 60% by 2030, when compared to 1990 levels. In doing so, the applicants argued that an insufficient reduction in greenhouse gas emissions infringed their fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, namely the right to life (Article 2), the right to the integrity of the person (Article 3), the rights of the child (Article 24), the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation (Article 15), the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16), the right to property (Article 17) and the right to equal treatment (Articles 20 and 21).

The General Court declared the action inadmissible because the claimants had no locus standi. The claimants appealed to the Court of Justice. They claimed that the Court should set aside the order under appeal, declare the actions at first instance admissible, and refer the case back to the General Court. The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the claim that an act of the EU infringes fundamental rights is not sufficient to establish admissibility of an action brought by an individual.

Deciding body:
European Court of Justice (European Union)

Date of resolution:
25 March 2021

Admissibility:
The General Court declared the action inadmissible because the claimants did not satisfy any of the locus standi criteria under its strict ‘Plaumann’ test. The Court held that the claimants were not individually concerned, because they were not the addressees of the acts at issue. The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, and emphasized that the mere fact of alleging that a legal act of the Union infringes fundamental rights does not mean that an individual’s action is admissible; otherwise the meaning of the admissibility requirements laid down in the TFEU would be meaningless. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the European Union courts cannot, without exceeding their powers, deviate from the express provisions of the TFEU, this also applies to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Full text
The full text of the decision is available here.

Further developments:
EU Regulation 1367/2006/EU, the ‘Aarhus Regulation’, was amended on 6 October 2021. This decision expanded NGO’s abilities to challenge administrative acts contravening environmental law. For an analysis of ensuing developments by Juliette Delarue, see here.

Additional reading:
On the 2019 decision on the case by the General Court, see Gerd Winter, ‘Armando Carvalho and Others v. EU: Invoking Human Rights and the Paris Agreement for Better Climate Protection Legislation’ 9(1) Transnational Environmental Law (2020), 137-164, available here.

Suggested case citation:
ECJ, Armando Carvalho and Others v. The European Parliament and the Council, no. C-565/19 P, Judgment of 25 March 2021.

Last updated:
26 August 2023


  • Tags
Categories
2021 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Germany Paris Agreement

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order of 24 March 2021 (Neubauer v. Germany)

Summary:
On 21 April 2019, the German Federal Constitutional Court (‘Bundesverfassungsgericht’) issued a historic judgment quashing parts of the German Climate Protection Act. The judgment considered that the existing measures for climate protection impermissibly deferred the emissions reductions necessary for meeting Paris Agreement goals into the future, i.e. post-2031, thereby shifting the responsibility for reductions onto future generations, who would have to accept dramatic limitations on their freedoms as a result.

Admissibility:
–

Merits:
In its judgment, First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the parts of the German Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) governing national climate targets and the emissions allowed annually until 2030 were incompatible with fundamental rights. This finding was based on the absence of specified emission reductions after 2030. The Court emphasized the principle of inter-generational justice stemming from Art. 20a of the German Basic Law.

The KSG creates an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The Bundesverfassungsgericht held that the legislator had not violated its constitutional duty to protect the complainants from the risks of climate change or to take climate action (as required by Article 20a of the German Basic Law) by passing the KSG into law. However, it found that the provisions in questions irreversibly offloaded emission reduction burdens into the future, namely the time period after post-2030. The Bundesverfassungsgericht drew on the constitutional climate goal arising from Article 20a of the German Basic Law, which requires — in line with the targets set out in the Paris Agreement — that increases in the global average temperature should be limited to well below 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Court found that the statutory provisions in the KSG on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 2031 onwards were insufficient, meaning that a great burden would be placed on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by future generations. This violated the constitutional rights of the applicants, in the sense of their fundamental freedoms (including, among others, Art. 2(1) GG) in the sense of an advance interference-like effect (eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung).

In all other respects, the constitutional complaints were rejected. This includes the rejection of complaints about current-day interferences with the rights to life and physical integrity, and complaints by applicants from Bangladesh and Nepal.

Remedies:
The court ordered the legislator to enact provisions specifying the adjustment of reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for periods after 2030 in greater detail by 31 December 2022 that.

Separate opinions:
None

Implementation measures taken:
TBD

Date:
24 March 2021

Type of Forum:
Domestic

Status of case:
Final

Suggested case citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of the First Senate of 24 March 2021 – 1 BvR 2656/18 -, N. 1-270, http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html.

Links:
Judgment in German

Summary in English

Categories
2021 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Extraterritorial obligations Standing/admissibility The United Kingdom

Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell and Others

Summary:
In October and December 2015, the Ogale and Bille Nigerian communities filed parallel complaints against the UK company Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in the UK High Court. The claimants sought a remedy for the extensive oil pollution caused by Shell arguing that it had affected their livelihoods and the environment. They claimed that Shell had failed to prevent oil spills and did not conduct proper clean-up. The plaintiffs argued that Shell had not seriously prevented contamination of agricultural land and waterways. They argued that Shell, as the parent company, owed them duty of care because it exercised significant control over the material aspects of SPDC’s operations and was responsible for them.

In January 2017, the High Court held that the claimants could not sue Shell in English Courts. The Court held that there was not sufficient evidence that Shell exercised a high degree of oversight, control or direction over SPDC. It therefore had no legal responsibility as a parent company for pollution by its Nigerian subsidiary. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision in February 2018. The Court held that the parent company did not hold a duty of care towards the affected communities. In May 2020 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the UK Supreme Court, arguing that the parent company Shell owed them a common law duty of care in respect to the extensive environmental harmed caused by their business operations in Nigeria. On 12 February 2021, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled that the case could proceed in the UK Courts. The decision determined that there is an arguable case that Shell is legally responsible for the pollution caused by the activities of its subsidiary to the Ogale and Bille communities.

Date of decision:
12 February 2021

Admissibility:
The UK Supreme Court ruled that UK courts have jurisdiction over the case, due to the fact that the parent company may owe the plaintiffs a duty of care and therefore the action against Shell constitutes a triable issue.

Merits:
TBD

Remedies:
TDB

Suggested citation:
UK Supreme Court, Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell and Others, UKSC 2018/0068, Judgment of 12 February 2021, [2021] UKSC 3.

See also:
The similar (on the facts) case of Milieudefensie and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC (before the Dutch courts).

For the full judgment, click here.

To watch a webcast of the hearing, click here.

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake The United Kingdom Year

R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd

Summary:
On 26 June 2018, the UK Secretary of State for Transport adopted the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which governs the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. This led to challenges from several environmental campaigners, including Friends of the Earth Ltd and Plan B Earth. Among other grounds, it was argued that the Secretary of State had disregarded the UK Government’s commitments under the Paris Agreement (ratified on 17 November 2016 by the UK) when designating the ANPS.

In 2019 the Divisional Court dismissed all of the objectors’ claims in two separate judgments. However, in 2020 the Court of Appeal allowed part of Friends of the Earth’s and Plan B Earth’s grounds, and held that the ANPS was unlawful (see judgment here). The Secretary of State did not appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. However, Heathrow Airport Ltd, owner of Heathrow Airport, sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (UKSC). Heathrow Airport stated that it had already invested a large sum of money in promoting the third runway. On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to allow Heathrow Airport’s appeal on all grounds, ruling that the ANPS was lawful. However, the judgment states clearly that the climate must be considered at the planning permission stage of the third runway.

Human rights claims:
Under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Friends of the Earth et al. argued against interpreting section 5(8) of the Planning Act 2008 in a way that excluded consideration of the Paris Agreement temperature limit. This would result in the development of large-scale national projects posing an unacceptable risk to people’s lives and homes, in breach of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Supreme Court found that this reasoning must fail for two reasons. First, this argument had already been raised as a separate ground before the Divisional Court, where it was rejected. This decision was not appealed to the Court of Appeal, and was therefore not considered subject to the UKSC proceedings. Secondly, even if this argument were within the scope of the appeal, it would not have succeeded because any effect of the third runway on the lives and families of those affected by the consequences of climate change would result not from the designation of the ANPS but from granting permission to develop the construction project. As Heathrow Airport Ltd. had conceded, and the respondents agreed, the ANPS requires the third runway to be evaluated against the emissions targets in place if and when an application to develop the runway were to be made (para 113 of the UKSC judgment).

Further information:
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Plan B Earth announced in a press release that it intends to take the judgment to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that reliance upon the 2 degrees Celsius target is a violation of the right to life (see here). Additionally, Plan B Earth served a pre-action letter on the UK Government alleging that its failure to develop a plan to address climate change is a violation of human rights as well as domestic and international law (see here).

Date of decision:
16 December 2020

Suggested case citation:
UK Supreme Court, R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Heathrow Airport Ltd, UKSC 2020/0042, Judgment of 16 December 2020, [2020] UKSC 52

Case documents:
For the full judgment, click here.

To watch a webcast of the hearing, click here.

Further reading:
Joanne Hawkins, ‘A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52’, 23(4) Environmental Law Review (2021), 344-349. Available here.

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation France Standing/admissibility

Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA

Summary:

Total S.A. is a French energy company with oil projects in Uganda and Tanzania. According to the French “loi de vigilance”, companies with a certain size that meet certain criteria must develop a “plan de vigilance” documenting how they and the companies in their supply chain respect human rights and the environment in their business activities. The applicants claim that Total’s environmental plan (part of the “plan de vigilance”) is not suitable for achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition to better respect for human rights, the NGOs have demanded that Total take more effective measures to protect the environment. The first instance court, the Nanterre Civil Court of Justice, found that it had no jurisdiction over the case and that it fell instead within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts. The applicant NGOs appealed. The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirmed the judgment of the first instance, and the NGOs are now considering filing an appeal before the French Supreme Court.

Admissibility:
The Court confirmed the judgment of the first instance court, which had decided that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the commercial court. 

Date of filing:
16 March 2020

Date of decision:
10 December 2020

Suggested citation:
Court of Appeal of Versailles, Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA, case no. RG20/01692, decision of 10 December 2020.

Full judgment:
The full judgment is available here.

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (KLM)

Summary:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines struggled with serious financial difficulties. To support the airline during the crisis, the Dutch government granted KLM a bailout package totalling 3.4 billion Euros. Along with the support package, a number of conditions were imposed on KLM. These included a set of sustainability requirements and a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. As a result, Greenpeace Netherlands sued the Dutch government before the District Court of the Hague on 7 October 2020. Greenpeace claimed that the conditions imposed were not sufficient to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and that the state should either have imposed a cap on CO2 emissions on the airline or should not have granted the bailout package at all. In Greenpeace’s view, the state has thus breached its duty of care to prevent dangerous climate change, following the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Foundation case, thereby allegedly violating of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its ruling of 9 December 2020, the court ruled against Greenpeace, reasoning that neither the Paris Agreement nor other international climate agreements oblige the Dutch government to reduce CO2 emissions from international aviation. According to the court, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 stipulates that cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is required for CO2 reduction in international aviation. The Paris Agreement therefore only contains the obligation to reduce domestic emissions, but not emissions from international air traffic. Furthermore, the court found that the conditions requested by Greenpeace go beyond the ICAO’s resolution on CO2 emissions and that the conditions imposed by the Dutch government are in accordance with all international obligations in this regard. The court concluded that there was no obligation of the State of the Netherlands which was violated by granting KLM the bailout package with its conditions.

Date of decision:

9 December 2020

Suggested case citation:

District Court of The Hague, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, Judgment of 9 December 2020, C/09/600364 / KG ZA 20-933, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440.

Case ducuments:

District-Court-Judgment-in-DutchDownload
Plaintiffs-advocacy-note-in-DutchDownload
Notice-of-possible-legal-procedure-in-DutchDownload

Date last updated:

11 January 2023

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights France Paris Agreement Sea-level rise Uncategorized

Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France

Summary:
This case was brought to the French Conseil d’Etat by the municipality of Grande-Synthe, which is a low-lying coastal community, against the French government. The plaintiffs alleged that the government had taken insufficient action to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and domestic environmental regulations.

Admissibility:
The case was declared admissible on 19 November 2020 by the Conseil d’Etat. The Government was given three months to justify its current approach to climate measures. The Conseil d’Etat indicated that the Paris Agreement, and France’s 40% reduction target by 2030 as opposed to 1990 emissions levels, would be used to interpret the State’s obligations.

Merits:
Pending

Remedies:
Pending

Separate opinions:
Pending

Implementation measures taken:
On 1 July 2021, it was announced that, in light of this case, the French Conseil d’État would require the Government to take measures before 31 March 2022 in order to reach the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions totalling 40% by the year 2030.

To achieve the reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement, meaning a -40% reduction in emissions as compared to 1990 levels, the Government had previously adopted a reductions plan covering four time periods (2015-2018, 2019-2023, 2024-2028 and 2029-2033), each with its own reduction targets. The Conseil d’État observed in its decision of 1 July 2021 that the level of emissions measured in 2019 had respected the annual target set for the period of 2019-2023. However, the 0.9% decrease in emissions observed was too low when compared to the reduction objectives for the previous period (2015-2018), which were 1.9% per year, and compared to the objectives for the following period (2024-2028), which are 3% per year. Provisional data for 2020 might show a significant drop in emissions, but this must be to some extent due to pandemic-related restrictions and must therefore be regarded as “transitory”. It did not, by itself, guarantee that the reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target were being made. The Conseil d’État found that additional efforts were needed in the short term to achieve the target of 12% emissions reductions between 2024 and 2028.

Date:
Pending

Type of Forum:
Domestic

Status of case:
Pending

Suggested case citation:
Decision on the Admissibility: French Conseil d’Etat, Commune de Grande-Synthe and Others v. France, case no. 427301, Admissibility, 19 November 2020.

Links:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/commune-de-grande-synthe-v-france/

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Mexico Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Uncategorized

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies)

Summary:

In Spring of 2020 the Government of Mexico issued the following two policies: The Agreement of the National Centre of Energy Control (CENACE) “to ensure the Efficiency, Quality, Reliability, Continuity and Safety of the National Electric System, due to the recognition of the SARS-CoV2 virus disease epidemic (COVID-19)” and the Ministry of Energy’s “Reliability, Security, Continuity and Quality in the National Electrical System” policy. The directives provided for the closure of
renewable energy power plants and promoted oil-based power generation on the grounds that intermittent generation has a negative impact on the national power grid.

On 25 May 2020 Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against the Government of Mexico before the District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City. Greenpeace argued that the policies violated the constitutional rights to a healthy environment and sustainable development and Mexico’s international environmental commitments to reduce CO2 emissions.

Both the District Court and the First Circuit Collegiate Tribunal (appeals court) found the policies to violate constitutional rights and international climate agreements.

Claims:

Greenpeace claimed that the right to a healthy environment and numerous international agreements, namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, had been violated. Both policies would diminish environmental protection and increase CO2 emissions. This would contravene the named conventions and would violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

Decision:

The appeals court ruled that, besides the fact that the authorities were not competent to issue the policies in question, the implementation of those policies would violate the right to a healthy environment. Encouraging the production and consumption of fossil fuels generates more greenhouse gas emissions which pollute the environment and thus damage the right to a healthy environment. In its decision, the court relied on the principles of in dubio pro natura, civic participation, non-regression, and the inclusion of future generations.

Date of decision:

17 November 2020

Suggested case citation:

Second District Court in Administrative Matters of Mexico City, Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies) , Judgment of 17 November 2020, 104/2022.

Case documents:

ComplaintDownload

Preliminary InjunctionDownload

District Court Judgment declaring policies unconstitutionalDownload

Date last updated:

26 March 2024

Categories
2020 Canada Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Non-discrimination Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility

Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen

Facts of the case:

Plaintiffs comprising of 15 children and youths from various parts of Canada sued the Government and Attorney General of Canada alleging violations of the right to life and right to equality under Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the constitutional and common law duty to protect the integrity of common natural resources in public trust. According to the plaintiffs, the impugned conduct of the respondents consisted in: continuing to cause, contribute to and allow a level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions incompatible with a Stable Climate System (defined as a climate capable of sustaining human life and liberties); adopting GHG emission targets that are inconsistent with the best available science about what is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change and restore a Stable Climate System; failing to meet the Defendants’ own GHG emission targets; and actively participating in and supporting the development, expansion and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of GHGs incompatible with a Stable Climate System.

The defendants, while accepting the plaintiffs’ concerns about the seriousness of climate change and its potential impacts, filed a motion to strike their claim alleging that their claim is not justiciable.

Date of decision:

27 October 2020

Admissibility:

On 27 October 2020 the Federal Court in Ottawa granted the defendants’ motion. The Court answered the question of justiciability of the claims of Charter violations for the reason that the impugned conduct is of undue breadth and diffuse nature, and that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs were inappropriate. The Court also found that it had no constitutional obligation to intervene on the matter as there is room for disagreement between reasonable people on how climate change should be addressed. On the issue of justiciability of the public trust doctrine invoked by the plaintiffs, the Court found that the question of existence of the doctrine is a legal question which courts can resolve. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of its admissibility.

Merits:

NA

Status of the case:

The plaintiffs have appealed against the Federal Court’s order before the Federal Court of Appeal.

Suggested case citation:

Federal Court of Ottawa, Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen, T-1750-19, judgment of 27 October 2020, 2020 FC 1008

Case documents:

For the complaint filed by the plaintiffs on 25 October 2019, click here.

For the Government’s statement of defence notified on 7 February 2020, click here.

For the plaintiff’s reply to the Government’s motion to strike, filed on 31 August 2020, click here.

For the Federal Court of Ottawa’s order dated 27 October 2020, click here.

For the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the plaintiffs on 5 March 2021, click here.

Further reading:

Camille Cameron, Riley Weyman, ‘Recent Youth-Led and Rights-Based Climate Change Litigation in Canada: Reconciling Justiciability, Charter Claims and Procedural Choices,’ 34(1) Journal of Environmental Law (2021), Pages 195–207. Available here.