Statement on Ontario’s Attempts to Avoid its Climate Change Obligations and its Legal Commitments

Issued by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights on December 9, 2025

The Asper Centre condemns Ontario’s recent legislative efforts to deny its Charter-based obligations with respect to climate change.

In sprawling legislation that was passed as part of its Fall Economic Statement, via Bill 68, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2025, the Ontario government introduced critical amendments to Ontario’s statutory scheme for combatting climate change. These amendments had nothing to do with the budget, the alleged purpose of Bill 68. Instead, the amendments would, among other things, remove a longstanding provision that committed Ontario to setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets.

The Ontario government’s legislative move comes as the climate crisis is getting worse, not better. It was also the Ford government, in 2018, that passed the legislative provisions and set the GHG emissions caps now being repealed. Why, then, has the Ontario government sought to do away with a self-imposed duty to set GHG emission targets? And why now?

Critically, Ontario’s legislative move comes after Ontario suffered two legal defeats concerning the emissions targets in issue. This is not, however, a routine case of a province passing legislation to respond to a court order. The province is instead attempting to avoid further judicial scrutiny of its GHG emissions targets by simply abdicating its obligations with respect to setting targets altogether. That is, as a result of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 2024, Mathur et al. v. Ontario, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s subsequent refusal to hear Ontario’s request to appeal the decision (decided May, 2025), Ontario is currently being forced to proceed to trial on a major climate change issue. The trial would ask whether Ontario’s GHG emissions targets to date have violated the Charter rights of seven youth applicants. By removing its self-imposed GHG emissions targets prior to trial, Ontario’s new legislation attempts to undermine the foundations of the applicants’ legal claim.

As summarized by one of the youth applicants in the case, Zoe Keary-Matzner, Ontario’s actions would attempt to have Ontario, at the last hour, “rewrite the rules” and evade its obligations with respect to climate change:

Less than a week before our day in court, the Ford government blindsided us by stripping away its own climate obligations. It’s deeply disappointing that the government would rather rewrite the rules at the eleventh hour than be accountable to the young people and citizens it’s supposed to serve. By removing these obligations, the government is trying to let itself off the hook for tracking its climate progress. But we are not about to let them get away with it.

Notably, the Mathur applicants have also not been alone in challenging the Ontario government’s failures on climate action. Ontario’s legislative move also comes shortly after the Ontario Auditor General released a report, this October, finding that Ontario was failing to meet basic requirements imposed upon it by the province’s statutory scheme. These failures included Ontario missing its own GHG emissions targets. As summarized in its press release, the Ontario Auditor General found that “Ontario set a legislated target in 2018 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030,” but Ontario was projected “to miss this target by at least 3.5 megatonnes — and the gap could be even larger.”

Critically, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Mathur was not a trivial legal outcome. In Mathur, the applicants have specifically alleged that Ontario’s GHG reductions violated the Charter because they constituted discrimination against youth and younger generations and otherwise violated the applicants’ right to life, liberty, and security. The Court of Appeal then found, in a decision of national significance, that because Ontario had passed legislation intended to combat climate change, Ontario had assumed the burden of creating a climate plan and emissions targets that were Charter compliant. As a practical matter, the Court of Appeal decision was in part a critical decision for climate change efforts in Canada because the applicants in Mathur had successfully established, via unchallenged expert evidence in the court below, that Ontario’s emission target was set lower than the one required by scientific consensus to mitigate climate change. The Court of Appeal’s decision ultimately ruled that a new hearing was required to decide whether Ontario had met its Charter-based obligations.

Further to the Court of Appeal’s order, a hearing in Mathur had been set down for December 1. The matter is now temporarily adjourned. The Asper Centre has been an intervener in the case since the initial Ontario Superior Court of Justice proceedings.

It is not necessary to opine on the legal merits of Ontario’s tactics. That is, does a provincial legislature have the power to evade Charter obligations arising from a statutory scheme by attempting to abandon its longstanding commitments wholesale, and amid a deepening crisis the scheme was designed to prevent? Further, may it do so after the statutory scheme has been the subject of six years of ongoing litigation, and in a way that would frustrate the possibility of the applicants obtaining a Charter remedy that had been open to them prior to this abandonment? Regardless of one’s answer to such questions, Ontario’s tactics are bad policy. They are especially bad policy for any observer concerned about the climate crisis or about ensuring that Ontario lives up to its Charter obligations. Indeed, the material facts cannot be genuinely in dispute. The overwhelming evidence is that climate change is having a disproportionate impact on younger generations, including by way imposing upon them a heightened risk of shortened lifespans, climate-change related illnesses, and other serious harms.

Unfortunately, the issues raised by the passage of Bill 68 do not end there. Despite the public importance of the issues raised by Mathur, a public importance evidenced by the Ontario government’s willingness to attempt to appeal the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court, the Ontario government elected to carry out its legislative repeal in a way that would evade parliamentary and public scrutiny. In the first instance, the environmental law amendments were buried in a complex and sweeping omnibus bill. Any hope of scrutiny was then eliminated when the Plan to Protect Ontario Act was made subject to a time-allocation motion (Motion 11), the effect of which was to limit both debate and the possibility of material amendments to the 67-page bill. Suffice it to say, Charter-engaging legislation requires public and legislative scrutiny at the best of times. The Ontario government’s decision not to defend its actions, when the grounds for its departure was of the utmost importance, is a damning detail in a series of problematic decisions.

The Asper Centre opposes Ontario’s efforts to evade its Charter obligations with respect to climate change, including by way of last-minute legislative provisions that have been shielded from public and parliamentary scrutiny.

by: Chelsea Gordon and Daniel Kiesman

For the first time in Canada, an appellate court has considered the implications of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) on climate change policy. In a decision released on October 17^th, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in Mathur v Ontario[1] and remitted the application to be heard again by the Superior Court. In doing so, the Ontario Court of Appeal identified errors in the lower court judge’s analysis of the appellants’ case under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. This decision represents a significant win for youth climate activists.

The Asper Centre, represented by Ewa Krajewska, intervened in this case at both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

Background

Superior Court Judgement

In the judgement on appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal, a Justice of the Superior Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional challenge to the greenhouse gas emissions target set by the Government of Ontario under s. 3(1) of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (“CTCA”).[2]

In 2018, the Government of Ontario, through s. 3(1) of the CTCA set an emissions reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. However, scientific research showed that to prevent serious adverse consequences, greenhouse gas emissions would need to be reduced by 52% below 2005 levels by 2030. The applicants are a group of young Ontarians who argued that the target set by Ontario was too low, leading to adverse future consequences for young people and future generations.

At the Superior Court, the applicants advanced two Charter arguments. First, by failing to set the target high enough, Ontario was authorizing and creating a level of emissions that will lead to serious adverse consequences and put the lives of Ontarians at risk, violating s. 7 of the Charter. Second, the applicants argued the CTCA violates s. 15(1) of the Charter because it distinctly encumbers young people and future generations who will endure most of the impacts of climate change.

The judge characterized the applicants’ complaint as being a positive rights claim, suggesting that the applicants were seeking a declaration that the Ontario government has a positive obligation to prevent the impacts of climate change from posing a threat to young people’s security of the person.[3]

You can read the Asper Centre’s Superior Court factum here. For a more in depth discussion of the Superior Court decision, please see the Asper Centre’s previous blog post here.

After framing this as a positive rights case, the judge went on to assume without deciding that a positive obligation arose in this case, but that Ontario did not violate the principles of fundamental justice when setting the emissions target.[4] On that basis, no violation of s.7 was found. In deciding the applicants’ s.15(1) claim, the judge applied the two-part test from R v Sharma.[5] She held that while young people are disproportionately affected by climate change, that disproportionate effect is caused by climate change itself and not by the emissions target set by Ontario.[6] On this basis, she found that the government of Ontario had not caused or contributed to the disproportionate effects of climate change faced by young people. Further, there is no positive obligation on the government to address inequalities through remedial legislation.

Arguments on Appeal

The applicants appealed the Superior Court decision alleging that the application judge erred by characterizing their ss. 7 and 15(1) Charter claims as attempts to impose positive obligations on the Government of Ontario to combat climate change. Their position was that Ontario’s chosen response to climate change knowingly permits dangerously high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, which will discriminate against youth and future generations, and that both the Target and the Plan should be reviewed for constitutional compliance.

Ontario focused its arguments primarily on the issue of remedies, arguing that the appellants’ request for a science-based greenhouse gas reduction target was outside the court’s institutional capacity to order. Further, Ontario argued that the appellants’ have not proven that Ontario has caused or contributed to the worsening impacts of climate change and that the effects claimed are not caused by the Target, Plan or the CTCA.

Asper Centre Intervention

The Asper Centre intervened on two points. First, the application judge erred by adopting a formalistic approach to causation that has consistently been rejected by the s. 15(1) jurisprudence. Second, given the complexities and the novelty of climate change, should the Court of Appeal find a Charter infringement, it ought to go beyond declaratory relief to craft an appropriate and just remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. You can read the Asper Centre’s factum here.

With respect to s. 15(1), the Asper Centre urged the Court of Appeal to reinforce the flexible approach to causation in the context of governmental emissions targets. The Asper Centre emphasized that the caselaw has made clear that substantive equality is at the centre of s.15(1). To achieve substantive equality, courts must adopt a flexible approach to causation and consider the actual impact of the impugned law on the claimant group. Claimants need not show that the impugned law is the only or predominant cause of the disproportionate impact. Under the proper approach to causation, the claimants need only to show that the impugned emission targets contribute to the disproportionate effects of climate change. In this way, substantive equality may be achieved by allowing s. 15(1) to remain flexible to account for pre-existing problems such as climate change.

The Asper Centre also argued that the application judges’ approach, which viewed climate change itself as the cause of the disproportionate impact on youth, harkens back to the rejected formalistic approach to equality taken under the Canadian Bill of Rights. Instead, the Asper Centre argued that the application judge should have followed the approach to substantive equality taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux and Quebec (Attorney General) v A.[7] These cases recognized that while the government was not responsible for the underlying inequality, all that the claimant must show is that the government action contributes to a disproportionate impact.

With respect to s. 24(1) remedies, the Asper Centre argued that if a Charter violation is found, the Court can be creative in utilizing its remedial discretion under s. 24(1). The Asper Centre argued that, in this case, declaratory relief would be insufficient since the impacts of climate change and inadequate government action present complex and novel issues for the legal system. The Asper Centre submitted that when faced with novel issues, courts are able to fashion unique remedies under s. 24(1).

For a more fulsome discussion of the Asper Centre’s intervention before the Ontario Court of Appeal, please see our previous post here.

Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal

In a unanimous decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in characterizing this as a positive rights case. They stated, “Ontario voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change and to produce the Plan and the Target for that purpose. Ontario was therefore obligated to produce a plan and a target that were Charter compliant.”[8] The Justices allowed the appeal owing to the errors in the lower court judgement but declined to decide the issues and instead remitted it back to the Superior Court to be heard again. They chose not to decide the issues based on the “institutional advantage” that courts of first instance have in issuing declarations and directions.[9]

Section 7

In the s. 7 analysis, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the application judge’s incorrect framing of the issue as a positive rights claim has led to errors in her reasoning. The Court stated, “The question before the application judge was not whether Ontario’s Target did not go far enough in the absence of a positive obligation to do anything. Rather, she should have considered whether, given Ontario’s positive statutory obligation to combat climate change that it had voluntarily assumed, the Target was Charter complaint.”[10]

Section 15(1)

The Court held that the application judge had again erred by characterizing the appellants’ claim as a positive rights claim. In the case of s.15(1), this led the application judge to incorrectly conclude that the applicants sought to impose an obligation on the government to remedy inequality associated with climate change. The Court of Appeal emphasized that while s. 15(1) does not impose a general obligation on the state to remedy all inequalities, when a government has chosen to act, that legislation cannot have a discriminatory impact.[11]

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the application judge’s analytical error in construing the appellants’ position as a positive right claim led to an improper causation analysis. The Court’s reasons indicate that the causation analysis at the first step of the s. 15(1) test should be flexible and responsive to the nature of the particular adverse impact claim. Thus, the Court of Appeal held that proper causation analysis in this instance should have gone further and considered whether, by committing itself to a greenhouse gas emissions target that fell short of the scientific consensus on what was required, Ontario has caused or contributed to a disproportionate impact.[12] Because the province has chosen to enact the CTCA, the proper analysis should have addressed whether “there was a link or nexus between the impact of the Target and the disproportionate impact based on a protected ground.”[13]

Additionally, the Court of Appeal determined that the application judge’s causation analysis was at odds with her findings under s. 7.[14] The application judge held that the appellants had met their causation burden of showing the CTCA engaged their rights to life and security of the person. The Court of Appeal noted that the causation burden under both s. 7 and s. 15(1) is the same in that a claimant does not need to show that state action is the dominant cause of the harm.[15] By finding that the causation burden was met under s. 7 and not under s. 15(1), the application judge drew conclusions which the Court of Appeal determined were inconsistent and not adequately explained.[16]

Implications Moving Forward

The Court of Appeal declined to decide the application and instead remitted the case back to the Superior Court for a new hearing.[17] Thus, the case will return to the Superior Court for the s. 7 and s. 15(1) issues to be decided on the merits and in light of this decision.

Overall, this decision is an important signal that Charter challenges of climate change legislation are not necessarily positive rights claims. In this case, the Court of Appeal made clear that while climate change is a global issue when a provincial government chooses to act to address it, the choices it makes are subject to review to ensure they are compliant with the Charter. Going forward, this case solidifies the role of the judiciary with respect to climate change and other remedial legislation. Ensuring that in the division of powers, the judiciary will maintain a role in reviewing legislation for constitutional compliance and, more than anything, leaves open the door to a finding that insufficient climate change action violates Charter rights.

This decision is also important as it is one of the first appellate decisions regarding s. 15(1) since the Supreme Court released its decision in Sharma.[18] The Court of Appeal recommitted to the flexible approach to causation that a substantive approach to equality requires. This decision makes clear that a rigid and formulaic approach to causation is improper and inadequate. Where a pre-existing societal inequity exists, and a government chooses to act to address it, courts must not focus only on pre-existing inequity at the causation stage of the analysis. Instead, as the Court of Appeal indicated in its reasons, courts must adopt a flexible approach to causation that considers the underlying contextual factors and examine whether the government action in question contributes to the inequality in question. In this instance, as the Court of Appeal concluded, the proper approach to causation necessitates an inquiry into whether the impugned emissions targets contribute to a disproportionate impact on youth.[19]

Chelsea Gordon and Daniel Kiesman are 3L JD Candidates at the Faculty of Law, and were Asper Centre Clinic students in Fall 2023, who worked on the Asper Centre’s intervention in Mathur.

[1] Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 [Mathur CA].

[2] Mathur v Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316 [Mathur]; Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, SO 2018, c 13, s 3(1).

[3] Mathur, supra note 2 at paras 122-124.

[4] Ibid at para 142.

[5] R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39.

[6] Mathur, supra note 2 at para 178.

[7] Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17; Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5.

[8] Mathur CA, supra note 1 at para 5.

[9] Ibid at para 7.

[10] Ibid at para 53.

[11] Ibid at para 40, 55-58.

[12] Ibid at para 58.

[13] Ibid at para 57.

[14] Ibid at para 59.

[15] Ibid at para 61.

[16] Ibid at para 65.

[17] Ibid at para 76.

[18] R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39.

[19] Mathur CA, supra note 1 at para 58.