Youth climate trial opens in Vancouver, arguing federal law violates charter rights

VANCOUVER · A landmark constitutional challenge by 15 young Canadians against the federal government's climate policies opened in a Vancouver courtroom Monday. The plaintiffs, aged 17 to 25, argue that the government's Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act is not ambitious enough to protect them from climate change, violating their rights to life, liberty and security under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial, expected to last four weeks, will hear testimony from the youth about how wildfires, floods and heat have already harmed them. Lawyers for the youth said the case is about holding the government legally accountable for actions they say are worsening the climate crisis. "The plaintiffs are asking this court to hold Canada legally accountable for its role in continuing and worsening the climate crisis that is causing harm," said Catherine Boies Parker, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in her opening statement. She argued the Charter must provide youth a "degree of protection from their own government’s actions" that she says are contributing to the "greatest threat to personal security that humans have ever faced." Boies Parker told the court the impacts of climate change have intensified since the case was first filed in 2019, citing the 2021 B.C. heat dome and the record-breaking 2023 wildfire season.

The first plaintiff to testify was Kira Young, 20, from Yellowknife, who described being evacuated with her family as a wildfire approached the city in August 2023. "I was terrified," she told the court, recounting driving through smoke and flames. Young said she has since been diagnosed with Still’s Disease, an autoinflammatory disorder that is "exacerbated by heat and smoke." She testified she joined the case because she is "so scared that the suffering and the pain and hardship" she described is just the beginning for youth across Canada.

Other plaintiffs have described similar experiences. Lauren Wright, 22, from Saskatchewan, recounted a co-worker suffering an asthma attack while planting lentils in thick wildfire smoke last summer. Haana Edenshaw of the Haida Nation has witnessed sea-level rise damage her family home on Haida Gwaii. In 2013, Sadie Vipond, then seven, was evacuated from her Calgary neighbourhood during a flood. "I was really scared for my home and family," Vipond said. The lawsuit claims these harms are connected to federal policy that fails to require actual reductions in carbon pollution.

READ MORE: Young Canadians sue federal government over climate change inaction

READ MORE: Lac Simon Anishnabe Nation sues Ottawa over failure to protect Val-d'Or caribou

Federal lawyers pushed back in their opening arguments, contending the court is being asked to solve a global problem. BJ Wray, counsel for the Department of Justice, said the Charter was "never intended to solve existential crises." Wray argued that climate change requires a global solution and that imposing a legal obligation on Canada alone is something "the government has no way of satisfying." The government's position is that its plan to lower emissions is consistent with international commitments and that Canada's actions have "little or no control over the ultimate impacts of globally-fuelled climate change."

The government also argues the court lacks the "institutional competence" to evaluate the complex scientific, economic and political issues of global climate policy. Justice Simon Fothergill noted he is "mindful that this could have implications" on other essential issues like housing or health care. The plaintiffs' lawyers say they are not asking the court to design policy, but to rule on their constitutional right to protection. "When the government acts in a manner that interferes with the physical and emotional integrity of its people, especially its most vulnerable people, the rule of law requires the court to assess whether that interference is consistent with the constitution," Boies Parker said.

The case, known as La Rose vs. His Majesty the King, was initially dismissed before a federal appeals court ruled in 2023 that the youths were entitled to a trial. Your Space Hamilton reported in October that the lawsuit argues government inaction on emissions violates constitutional rights. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, the government would need to rewrite its net-zero policies to align with the Charter, though it would not be forced to adopt a specific climate plan. The trial is expected to continue into late November, with closing arguments scheduled for February.

With files from The Canadian Press, The Narwhal and CFJC Today Kamloops