Long-Awaited Climate Change Case Finally Goes to Court in Canada

Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation . This story was originally published by Grist . Sign up for Grist ’s weekly newsletter here . Climate change gets a rare day in court as 15 Canadian youth accuse the federal government of violating their constitutional rights by failing to adequately address the country’s role in global warming.

Although thousands of similar cases have been filed across the globe, legal experts said this long-awaited case is arguably the most consequential to reach trial. The lawsuit is the latest in a yearslong campaign by young people who are using the courts to force elected officials to mitigate climate change. Like similar cases in the United States, including the landmark Held v. Montana , the plaintiffs in La Rose v. His Majesty the King argue that the government has violated their constitutional rights by allowing the crisis to continue.

Set in Vancouver, the proceedings are slated to last five weeks, with the 15 plaintiffs expected to testify alongside climate scientists and other experts. “It’s the chance for the young people to tell their story,” said Kelly Matheson, deputy director for global strategy at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit behind this case and many similar efforts around the world. The outcome, while not precedent-setting outside of Canada, could prove persuasive in other climate litigation or spur new cases.

“We found that some of the positive decisions from some countries have been inspirational in other countries,” said Michael Gerrard, faculty director of the Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “This trial will be closely watched.” The case began in 2019, when the youth, six of whom identify as Indigenous, filed suit. They alleged, among other things, that by not doing enough to combat climate change, the government had violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which guarantees “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.”

They also argued that federal action breached their equality protections granted under Section 15 of the charter because, as young people, they will bear a disproportionate share of the impacts of the crisis. Related Story Op-Ed | Environment & Health New Documents Expose Exxon’s Attempt to Suppress Damning Climate Evidence A paper from 1992 shows the oil company anticipating how the melting of Arctic ice sheets could impact its bottom line.

By Aaron Regunberg & David Arkush , T ruthout October 16, 2026 Truthout The original lawsuit took aim at much of Canada’s approach to climate change. The plaintiffs argued that the government had allowed emissions to remain dangerously high, set targets that fell short of what scientists said was necessary to avoid the worst outcomes, repeatedly failed to meet those targets, and continued supporting the development and expansion of fossil fuels.

Although the government did not challenge the reality of climate change, its arguments included a claim that the accusations were overly broad and the lawsuit improperly asked the court to resolve a political matter. A federal judge agreed and dismissed the case without a trial in 2020. The plaintiffs appealed. In 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the Section 15 claim but allowed the Section 7 arguments to proceed if the plaintiffs more specifically detailed the government conduct that violated their protected rights.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint to focus on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act of 2021, which commits the country to achieving the law’s objectives by 2050, and the 2030 emissions reduction plan adopted under that law. They argue that the efforts don’t go far enough to avoid violating their charter rights in the context of climate change and that the government committed to the net-zero law. “Increasingly, people across Canada and the world are seeing the direct impacts of climate change,” said Andrew Gage, a staff lawyer for West Coast Environment Law who has worked on this case alongside Our Children’s Trust.

“The plaintiffs will have their day in court.” The Canadian Department of Justice referred a request for comment to Environment and Climate Change Canada, which declined an interview request but provided a written statement to Grist . “Our commitment to net-zero by 2050 has not wavered, and we are implementing an ambitious climate agenda,” a spokesperson, Samantha Bayard, wrote in an email. “The Government of Canada respects the role of the courts, the right of Canadians to bring matters before the courts, and the important role that an independent judiciary plays in our democracy.”

All 15 youths, who were between the ages of 10 and 19 when the suit was filed, are expected to testify. They will be joined by expert witnesses in climate science, renewable energy, children’s health, and economics. Closing arguments are scheduled for February with a decision expected sometime in 2027, although an appeal could delay a resolution. Still, it is unusual for such a case to even be heard. “Seldom has climate been put on trial,” said James May, an environmental law professor at Washburn University who isn’t involved in this case but has supported some of Our Children’s Trust’s past work.

He estimated that more than 3,000 climate cases have been filed worldwide over the past few decades, but most never reached a courtroom. The Hawai’i state Department of Transportation, for example, settled a lawsuit filed by 13 young people and agreed to develop a plan to zero out emissions from the transportation sector by 2045. The landmark case Juliana v. the United States was dismissed after years of litigation, and the Supreme Court declined to consider it.

Held v. Montana was a rare exception. After a seven-day trial in 2023, a judge ruled that the state’s energy permitting policies violated the plaintiffs’ right to “ a clean and healthful environment ,” which is enshrined in the state constitution. The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2024. A similar outcome in Vancouver could have implications in other British commonwealth countries and beyond, said Matheson. “These courts are looking to each other,” she said.

“There is momentum building.” But even if the plaintiffs don’t win, May considers the trial a victory even before it starts. “It could serve as a blueprint for how to do this elsewhere,” he said. “It has already succeeded.” Media that fights fascism Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers — that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump.

We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation. Share Share via Facebook Facebook Circle Icon Share via Bluesky Bluesky Circle Icon Share via Flipboard Flipboard Circle Icon Share via Mail Mail Circle Icon Share via Print More Share via Threads Share via Reddit Reddit Cirlce Icon Share via Pocket Pocket Circle Icon Share via Linkedin LinkedIn Circle Icon Share via Twitter Twitter Circle Icon This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Tik Root Tik Root is a senior staff writer at Grist . Truthout