Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court examined whether the applicants’ Charter-based climate change claims were justiciable or disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

• Applicants challenged government and Crown corporation actions related to fossil fuel-based electricity generation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caps.

• The court considered if the applicants could amend their claim and whether the claim should be struck for lack of legal foundation.

• Justiciability was central, focusing on whether the claim involved a sufficient legal component for judicial determination, or was a matter for legislative or executive policy.

• The applicants’ claims against Crown corporation directors for breach of statutory and fiduciary duties were scrutinized for legal sufficiency.

• Ultimately, the court struck the entire claim, finding it non-justiciable and lacking a reasonable cause of action, with no leave to amend.

Facts of the case

The applicants, including a minor represented by a litigation guardian and members of the Climate Justice Saskatoon Organization Inc., brought a claim against the Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower), Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan (CIC), and the Government of Saskatchewan. They alleged that the government’s strategic direction regarding electricity generation—specifically, the approval and construction of two new unabated fossil fuel-based generation assets (UFFGAs) and the setting of GHG emissions caps under provincial regulations—violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicants sought court orders to compel the government to implement a plan for “Net Zero” electricity by 2035 or, alternatively, by 2040, and to set more stringent GHG emissions caps consistent with international climate agreements.

The applicants’ position and the relief sought

The applicants argued that the government’s actions and regulations were insufficient to address the dangers of climate change, resulting in unacceptable GHG emissions and infringing their Charter rights to life, liberty, security of the person, and equality. They requested the court to direct the government to develop and enforce a Net Zero electricity plan, revise emissions caps to meet international standards, and halt further development of fossil fuel generation assets unless compatible with the Net Zero plan. The claim also alleged that the directors of SaskPower and CIC owed statutory and common law fiduciary duties to all Saskatchewan residents and breached these duties by approving new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Discussion of policy terms and legal framework

While the case did not involve insurance or commercial policy terms, it did center on statutory and regulatory frameworks, notably The Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases (General and Electricity Producer) Regulations (MRGHG Regulations) and the emission caps set therein. The applicants challenged the adequacy of these caps and the government’s failure to legislate more ambitious targets, referencing the Paris Agreement and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act as benchmarks.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing amendments to pleadings, the test for striking claims, and the doctrine of justiciability. It emphasized that Charter claims must be anchored in a specific law or government action pursuant to a law, and not merely challenge the wisdom or sufficiency of government policy. The court also addressed the separation of powers, noting that courts must avoid encroaching on the legislative or executive branches’ roles, especially in complex policy areas like climate change.

Analysis of the court’s findings

The court allowed some amendments to the applicants’ claim but struck those that pleaded evidence or legal argument rather than material facts. On the substantive issues, the court found that the applicants’ challenges to the UFFGAs and the GHG caps lacked a sufficient legal anchor. The claim did not allege non-compliance with any statutory obligation or breach of legislated standards, distinguishing it from recent climate litigation where courts found justiciable issues based on specific legal requirements.

The court determined that the applicants’ requests would require judicial direction of legislative and policy matters, exceeding the court’s institutional capacity and legitimacy. The claims against Crown corporation directors were also struck, as their statutory duties are owed to the corporations, not the public, and the applicants failed to plead facts establishing a fiduciary duty to all residents.

Ruling and outcome

The court concluded that the applicants’ Charter claims were not justiciable and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The entire claim was struck without leave to amend. No costs were awarded. The ruling underscores the limits of judicial intervention in policy-driven climate litigation where claims are not grounded in specific legal obligations or breaches. The respondents—the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Crown Investments Corporation, and the Government of Saskatchewan—were the successful parties, and no monetary award was ordered in favor of any party, as the claim was dismissed in its entirety.