Crime & Police
Money Stuff
Health & Sexuality
Legal Life Skills
Driving
Family
Work & School
Housing
Basic RightsLa Rose v. Canada: Youth Take the Government to Court Over Climate Change
Last Reviewed:
Reviewed By:
A youth-led climate case against the federal government is going to trial. The Federal Court will have to decide whether the Charter requires the government to protect young people from climate change, which would be a big change in Canadian law.
What is the case?
In 2019, fifteen Canadian youth, aged 10-19 at time of filing, filed a lawsuit against the government of Canada arguing that the government’s policies and actions violate their section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and the security of the person because they increase greenhouse emissions which contribute to climate change.
It’s been a long road. At one point the whole case was booted from court because the judge thought what the youth were asking for was too broad. However, on appeal the youth were allowed to change (or "amend" in court speak) their argument and narrowed the issues. Now they’re focused on two specific things: the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and the government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. They say these set Canada on an emissions path that isn’t safe for young people.
What is happening?
A multi-week trial starting on Monday October 26th, 2026 at the Federal Court in Vancouver. It’s called La Rose v. His Majesty the King. Final arguments are probably taking place early in 2027.
Who is involved?
The plaintiffs (the people who filed the lawsuit) are youth from across Canada, represented by lawyers and supported by Our Children’s Trust and West Coast Environmental Law. On the other side are lawyers for the Government of Canada.
What are the key issues?
Issue 1: Do the law and policies cause harm to the youth?
The youth argue: The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act of 2021 and the 2030 Emission Reduction Plan are too weak and not enough to reduce the impacts of climate change and caused or contributed to harm to their health, development, survival and fundamental personal choices like where they live.
The government argues: The youth cannot make enough of a connection between the Net-Zero Act and the harms the youth are suffering because of climate change.
Issue 2: Does the government have an obligation under the Charter to protect youth from the impacts of climate change?
Most Charter rights are “negative” rights: they stop the government from doing something to you, like searching you without a good reason. A “positive” right would require the government to act to protect you. The Supreme Court of Canada has said a positive right under the Charter might be possible in “special circumstances” but has never actually found one under section 7.
The youth argue: The climate crisis is exactly that kind of special circumstance. If they win on this point, it would be a major development in Canadian law.
The government argues: There is no positive right in this scenario.
Real Case
IT'S A BIG DEAL! If the youth succeed, it would mean that the government would have an obligation to proactively protect you from climate change, rather than just avoid harming you. This is a big deal because it would mean a big change to Canadian law and a lot of new responsibilities for the government.
Issue 3: Was it fair?
Even if the government does have a positive obligation to protect youth from climate change AND their policies fall short of that obligation which caused harm to the youth… are the harms consistent with the principles of fundamental justice under the Charter?
The youth argue: The government's actions breach the principles of fundamental justice as the impacts of climate change on the youth are grave and will be disproportionate to any economic or other goal of the government.
The government argues: The government laws are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. Its climate laws aim to reduce emissions, and any effect on the youth isn’t arbitrary or out of proportion.
Legal Lingo
Principles of fundamental justice: Basically they are the core principles that society agrees are necessary to follow so that the legal system is fair. Not all of these are actually defined in the Charter. Instead they have developed over time through past decisions by judges. Examples of established principles of fundamental justice are that laws shouldn’t be arbitrary or have excessive effects.
Dig Deeper
It’s a tricky topic! If you want to dive deeper into what it takes to find a violation of s.7 of the Charter try the Centre for Constitutional Studies.
Issue 4: If there is a breach, what should the remedy be?
The youth want, among other things, to require the government to develop and implement policies that are consistent with their obligations and maintain an emission trajectory consistent with the best science.
Legal Level Up
Want to watch the trial? You can register to see a live stream of the court sessions! Recording of any kind is not permitted, including audio, video, photos, and screenshots. Zoom links may not be shared.
Dig Deeper
Our Children’s Trust has a deep dive on the history of the case from the youth’s perspective. They will also be providing weekly updates as the case moves forward.