‘We are in a climate emergency and we cannot afford any delay’: Fraser Thomson, Ecojustice lawyer
The Federal Court has refused to strike a climate accountability case brought by three youth applicants, Environmental Defence Canada, and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) over the federal government's approach to greenhouse gas emissions.
“We are in a climate emergency and we cannot afford any delay in dealing with this existential threat,” said Fraser Thomson, a lawyer at Ecojustice, which represented the applicants.
In Maltais v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2026 CanLII 97613 (FC), the applicants brought the underlying application for mandamus relief under the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, 2021 (CNZEAA).
The applicants sought to compel the respondent minister of environment, climate change, and nature to ensure that Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction plan abided by s. 10(l)(b) and/or s. 9(1) of the CNZEAA by initiating an amendment process under s. 11 of the CNZEAA or otherwise.
Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the applicants asserted that they could arguably interpret s. 11 as imposing a mandatory duty on the minister despite the use of the permissive “may.”
The applicants also alleged that a public legal duty to act arose from ss. 9(1) and 10(1)(b).
Motion to strike and dismiss
On the respondents’ behalf, the federal attorney general filed the present motion under r. 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. Specifically, the motion sought to dismiss the application and strike it entirely without leave to amend.
According to the respondents, s. 11 of the CNZEAA had a clear and obvious meaning. They argued that the use of the permissive “may” reflected the grant of a discretionary or permissive public law power, not the imposition of a public legal duty to act.
Federal Court lets case move forward
The Federal Court denied the respondents’ motion, directed them to serve their affidavits within 45 days, ordered compliance with the timelines in the Federal Courts Rules, and awarded the applicants their costs under column 2 of tariff B of the rules.
The court declined to strike the declaratory relief claims because it saw some possibility of success in the application for mandamus relief.
The court held that a complete record and a full interpretive analysis were necessary for it to consider the parties’ nuanced submissions and to correctly interpret the disputed statutory provision. The court added that just “some” legal analysis would not be enough.
The court noted that the parties provided opposing arguments about how to interpret s. 11 of the CNZEAA and how s. 11 interacted with ss. 9(1) and 10(1)(b) within the legislative scheme. The court said these arguments addressed parliamentary intent and the factual and legislative context.
Applicants’ reaction to Federal Court ruling
“The time for delay is over,” Thomson said in a press release from Ecojustice. “The Court can now consider this important issue of climate accountability without further delay.”
“Young people deserve to know whether the promises made about our future are being backed by action,” said Marie Maltais, a youth applicant based in Quebec.
“This summer has shown us what climate change looks like when it hits home — from catastrophic wildfires and floods to extreme heat and smoke-filled skies,” said Shirley Barnea, another youth applicant from Quebec. “While our communities pay the price, the federal government is barreling ahead on a dangerous trajectory with ever more fossil fuel expansion.”
“Doctors are already seeing climate change harm patients’ health across Canada: children struggling to breathe through wildfire smoke, older patients whose hearts and kidneys can’t cope with extreme heat, surgeries postponed by evacuations,” added Dr. Samantha Green, CAPE president.
More Ecojustice news
Here are some other news stories involving Ecojustice, an environmental law charity.
Three lawyers for Ecojustice authored a May 4 letter advising the federal government, its ministers, and Crown corporations of potential constitutional challenges in the event of new or expanded public financing or subsidies for a new oil pipeline or large-scale fossil fuel projects such as Ksi Lisims LNG and LNG Canada phase 2.
In June 2025, the Federal Court abolished the Canadian government’s adjusted approach to safeguarding critical habitat for the piping plover, an endangered bird, in what Ecojustice dubbed a precedent-setting victory that promoted compliance with the Species at Risk Act, 2002.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest Canadian legal news on the main page!
