Federal government asks court to strike down climate lawsuit before hearing

The federal government is asking the courts to toss out a high-profile lawsuit that seeks to force Ottawa to update Canada's climate plan to meet national emissions reduction targets, arguing that courts lack the authority to direct climate policy.

The government filed a motion on August 14 asking the Federal Court to strike the case before it proceeds to full hearings. In its legal submission, Ottawa argues that the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act—the law under which the challenge was filed—uses the word "may" when granting the minister power to amend emissions targets, not "must." "Read in its ordinary and grammatical sense, the use of the word 'may' clearly does not impose any obligation to amend," the government stated.

Ottawa also contends that courts should not make or direct climate policy. "[The lawsuit] raises broad political and policy issues, these are beyond the Court's institutional capacity to address," the government said in its legal documents.

The case was launched in June by three young people and two environmental groups, who asked the Federal Court to order the government to amend its climate plan. The group argues that since the plan was first launched in 2022, the Liberal government has eliminated key measures needed for Canada to achieve its 2030 emissions reduction target. They contend this violates the accountability act.

When asked whether the federal government will update its 2030 climate plan, a spokesperson for the environment minister declined to comment. "The Government of Canada is committed to fighting climate change and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. As this matter is before the courts, we cannot comment further," said Keean Nembhard.

The young people behind the challenge reject the government's argument to dismiss. "Canadians are living through the devastating reality of not having a meaningful plan to address climate change," said Marie Maltais in a statement. "Yet, at this critical moment, the government is fighting to throw our case out of court, while simultaneously moving ahead with fossil fuel expansion and rolling back key climate protections."

Kyle Harrietha, who worked in several roles in government including as chief of staff to the energy minister and parliamentary affairs director for the environment minister before launching his own parliamentary consulting firm, DOPA Services, said the government's discretion may not be as absolute as Ottawa claims. "I'm not sure the government has unfettered discretion on this," Harrietha said. "I would say as someone who was in the room when this act was developed … that discretion was never intended to create a circumstance where the government would make major changes to its climate policy and then leave the plan unamended."