Kids tried to sue Canada over climate inaction. They lost, Not for the courts to decide, judge says by CBC News, Oct 27, 2020
This story was updated on Oct. 28, to include a statement from the Canadian government.
Haana Edenshaw was sitting in math class when she heard the news.
On Tuesday, a federal court rejected a lawsuit filed by Haana and 14 other teens against the Canadian government for what they call inaction on climate change.
The 17-year-old from Haida Gwaii, B.C., said she jumped out of her seat when she got the message.
It wasn’t the news she was hoping for. “I was just, like, a bit shaken up, a bit disappointed.”
That feeling didn’t last long. Haana said she and the others are planning to appeal the judge’s decision to reject their lawsuit.
We’re “nowhere near the end of our fight,” she said. “We’re just going to keep going.”
Haana Edenshaw, who’s Indigenous from the Haida Nation, said climate change threatens her ability to hunt and gather food and to learn from the land.
What was the lawsuit about?
In a media release from lawyers representing the group, the kids said the Government of Canada is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions that have resulted in changes to the climate.
They said those changes are causing harmful situations such as wildfire smoke and extreme temperatures.
The lawsuit asked the federal court to rule that Canada is, “interfering with the youth’s Charter rights to life, liberty, security of the person and equality.”
They had hoped that the lawsuit would force the government to come up with a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Why was the lawsuit rejected?
The judge in this case, Justice Michael D. Manson 
Appointed to the court by the law violating, pro big corporation, oil and frac patch pollution enabling, anti-environment, anti-Charter Harper Klan, ruled that the Canadian government would not go to trial under his watch.
There are a few reasons why.
One of the big ones is that the questions raised in the case “are so political that the courts are incapable or unsuited to deal with them,” he wrote in his decision.
Judicial Reality Check:
Emmett Macfarlane@EmmMacfarlane Poli Sci Prof, UWaterloo. Constitutional Law, Public Policy & Cdn Politics. Author & editor of books:
Law is politics people. Never forget.
End Judicial Reality Check!
The 15 kids involved in the lawsuit range in age from 10 to 19. They represent seven provinces and one territory.
Kids respond
Problem is, kids can’t vote, said Haana, so they have no say when it comes to choosing political leaders.
What’s more, Haana said, climate change hurts kids more than any other age group.
“It’s affecting youth the most, and we have the least say at the moment,” she said.
“Like, the more and more we have inaction for climate change, the worse the world is going to be when we grow up.”
Next steps
Lawyers representing the kids confirmed that they will be appealing the judge’s decision.
That means they will be applying to have the decision reversed.
Hanna said she’s motivated “to work even harder” as the case progresses.
CBC Kids News reached out to the Canadian government for their thoughts on the decision.
On Oct. 28, a spokesperson for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change sent a statement by email.
“We agree that climate change is a crisis that must be addressed,” Moira Kelly said.
She said the government has spent the past five years putting an “ambitious” climate plan in place. Pfffffft! Deflective and twisted. The gov’t spouts too many words and promises, not enough action, while throwing away taxpayer money on leaking, mega-money losing pipelines, and enabling more and more polluting oil, gas and frac/LNG industry developments, and delay upon delay upon delay, granting companies and their propaganda groups (e.g. CAPP) everything they demand, and more and, worse, continue to refuse to implement CETA (1999), refusing to make companies publicly disclose toxic chemicals used.
Still, “we know we need to do more, which is why we will soon bring forward an updated climate plan,” Kelly said. “Soon?” In how many years? “Bring forward?” When? 2030? When it’s too late and the polluting, life-harming industry has been driven into the bin by banks and investors? Ms. Kelly contradicts herself.
Refer also to:
2019 07 23: Judicial Tragedy: U.S. District Judge William Alsup wanted to “stick to the science” and avoid politics, presided over standing room only tutorial on climate change, but let big oil off using politics. Science is on humanity’s side, the law is not – because it’s so political!
2019 12 24: Happy Christmas! Twenty years later, polluters still rule Canada and abuse Canadians
2020 11 02: Rest super fund commits to net-zero emission investments after Brisbane man sues
…
Key points:
– Mark McVeigh sued Rest in 2018 for failing to provide details on how it will minimise the risk of climate change
– Mr McVeigh’s lawyer says the case sets an important precedent
– It’s the first time a superannuation fund has been sued for failing to consider climate change
In 2018, Mark McVeigh sued Rest, his superannuation fund, in the Federal Court after it failed to provide him with information on how it was managing the risks of climate change.
Mr McVeigh alleged Rest had breached the Superannuation Industry Act and the Corporations Act by failing to manage those risks — which could include fossil fuel companies plummeting in value or infrastructure being damaged by extreme weather.
The law requires trustees of super funds to act with care, skill and diligence to act in the best interest of members — including managing material risks to its investment portfolio.
In an 11th-hour settlement reached on Monday while the case was adjourned, Rest agreed its trustees have a duty to manage the financial risks of climate change.
Because the case was settled out of court, the outcome doesn’t carry the same weight as a legal precedent decided in court. But Mr McVeigh’s lawyer, David Barnden, head of Equity Generation Lawyers, said the case still sets an important precedent globally.
“This outcome should represent a significant shift in the market’s willingness to tackle climate risk — a shift which should set a clear precedent for the industry in Australia, and also pension funds around the world,” Mr Barnden said.
Martijn Wilder, a lawyer at Pollination, another climate-focussed law firm, said the settlement meant the impact of the case could fall short of what some were expecting.
“It has not [produced] a clear legal decision by a court which clarifies the obligations and duties of directors under the law,” he said.
“However, there is widespread acceptance in the legal and business community that these obligations regarding climate clearly exist.“
In a statement, Rest outlined the agreement it made with Mr McVeigh, and said: “The superannuation industry is a cornerstone of the Australian economy — an economy that is exposed to the financial, physical and transition impacts associated with climate change.”
An historic agreement
In the statement, Rest said that “climate change is a material, direct and current financial risk to the superannuation fund”.
Rest went further and agreed to manage its investments so they would be responsible for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
It also agreed to immediately begin testing its investment strategies against various climate change scenarios, publicly disclose all its holdings and advocate for companies it invests in to comply with the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to stop global warming at 1.5C.
The case was the first time an Australian superannuation fund had been sued for not doing enough on climate change.
“Today’s settlement gives me, and Rest’s almost two million members, the reassurance that we need to know that our retirement savings will be invested responsibly in the face of the climate crisis,” said Mr McVeigh.
His lawyer, Mr Barnden said the implications were far-reaching for investors, and for the climate.
“This marks the first time a major Australian superfund has agreed to settle litigation about the material financial risk of climate change and what needs to be done to protect members. It is clear that the buck stops with board members, and managing climate risk cannot be delegated away,” he said. …
In another case, Mr Barnden is representing all young people around the world in a class action against the Australian Environment Minister, alleging she has failed in her duty of care to protect young people from climate change.
Mr Barnden is also representing 23-year-old Katta O’Donnell, who is suing the Australian Government for failing to disclose the risks that climate change could have on government bonds.
Action picking up pace
The news comes amid a wave of developments around the world, indicating increased action on climate change. …
2017 08 10: World governments make citizens pay billions to destroy their own health
2015: Scary! Stephen Harper’s courts: How the judiciary in Canada has been remade
2012: Federal court judicial appointment by Harper gov’t
OTTAWA, October 5, 2012 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointment:
The Honourable Michael D. Manson, a lawyer with Smart & Biggar in Vancouver, is appointed a Judge of the Federal Court, to replace Mr. Justice D.R. Campbell, who elected to become a supernumerary judge as of January 1, 2011.
Mr. Justice Manson received a Bachelor of Science in 1976 from McGill University and a Diploma in Education in 1978. He received a Bachelor Laws from the University of British Columbia in 1982. He was admitted to the Bars of Ontario in 1984 and British Columbia in 1995.
Mr. Justice Manson has been with the firm Smart & Biggar, both in Ottawa and Vancouver, since 1982 and a partner since 1995. He became a registered trade-mark agent in 1984 and a registered patent agent in 1989. His main area of practice was intellectual property law.
Mr. Justice Manson was a member of both the Canadian Bar Association and the International Bar Association. He was a Fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and of the Litigation Counsel of America. He was an adjunct professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Victoria for 15 years and also at the University of British Columbia. He is the author of more than one hundred articles and papers on intellectual property, trade-mark patents and copyright law. He was a frequent speaker to various organizations nationally and internationally. He was selected Vancouver Intellectual Property Law Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers; Preeminent IP Litigation Lawyer in British Columbia by Benchmark Canada, The Definitive Guide to Canada’s Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys; and Canadian Outstanding IP Practitioner by Managing Intellectual Property, all in 2012.
This appointment is effective immediately.
-30-