Federal Court: Maltais v. Canada Climate Case Proceeds, Dismissal Denied

• The Federal Court has denied the federal government's motion to dismiss a climate accountability lawsuit, allowing *Maltais v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)* to proceed.
• Applicants, including youth and environmental groups, seek mandamus relief to compel the Minister of Environment to ensure Canada's 2030 emissions plan complies with the CNZEAA.
• The core legal dispute centers on the statutory interpretation of "may" in section 11 of the CNZEAA, with applicants arguing it implies a mandatory duty.
• The court ruled that a full evidentiary record and comprehensive interpretive analysis are necessary to resolve the complex legal arguments.
• The decision is seen by applicants as a crucial step towards holding the government accountable for its climate commitments amidst an ongoing climate emergency.

Fraser Thomson, a lawyer with Ecojustice, articulated the sentiment that "We are in a climate emergency and we cannot afford any delay in dealing with this existential threat."

The Federal Court has rejected a motion to dismiss a significant climate accountability lawsuit, ensuring that the case, *Maltais v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)*, will proceed. This decision means a challenge brought by three youth applicants, alongside Environmental Defence Canada and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), against the federal government's approach to greenhouse gas emissions will move forward. The applicants, represented by Ecojustice, initiated the underlying legal action seeking mandamus relief under the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, 2021 (CNZEAA). The federal attorney general, acting on behalf of the respondents, had filed a motion under rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, aiming to strike the application entirely without leave to amend.

At the heart of this Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act litigation is a dispute over the interpretation of the Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature's duties. The applicants are seeking to compel the Minister to ensure Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan complies with sections 10(1)(b) and/or 9(1) of the CNZEAA. This would involve initiating an amendment process under section 11 of the Act or taking other necessary steps. A central point of contention revolves around the statutory interpretation of the word "may" in section 11.

The applicants argue that, applying modern principles of statutory interpretation, section 11 could reasonably be construed as imposing a mandatory duty on the Minister, despite its permissive phrasing. They further assert that sections 9(1) and 10(1)(b) establish a public legal duty to act. Conversely, the respondents contended that section 11 of the CNZEAA possesses a clear and unambiguous meaning, arguing that "may" grants a discretionary or permissive public law power, rather than imposing a public legal duty. This fundamental disagreement over mandamus relief CNZEAA s. 11 and the 'may' vs 'shall' climate interpretation forms the crux of the legal battle.

In denying the federal government's motion, the Federal Court underscored the complexity of the legal arguments and the necessity for a comprehensive review. The court explicitly refused to strike the declaratory relief claims, citing a discernible possibility of success for the application seeking mandamus relief. It determined that a complete evidentiary record and a thorough interpretive analysis were indispensable for properly considering the nuanced submissions from both parties and for accurately interpreting the contested statutory provision. The court noted that mere preliminary legal analysis would be insufficient to resolve the matter.

It further highlighted that the parties presented conflicting arguments regarding the interpretation of section 11 of the CNZEAA and its interplay with sections 9(1) and 10(1)(b) within the broader legislative framework, arguments that touch upon parliamentary intent and the factual and legislative context. As part of its ruling, the court directed the respondents to serve their affidavits within 45 days, mandated adherence to the timelines stipulated in the Federal Courts Rules, and awarded costs to the applicants under column 2 of tariff B of the rules.

The decision to allow the Maltais v. Canada climate case to proceed has been met with strong statements from the applicants and their representatives, emphasizing the urgency of climate action and governmental accountability. Fraser Thomson, a lawyer with Ecojustice, articulated the sentiment that "We are in a climate emergency and we cannot afford any delay in dealing with this existential threat." He added that "The time for delay is over," expressing relief that the court can now address this critical issue of climate accountability without further postponement.

Youth applicant Marie Maltais from Quebec stressed the importance of governmental action matching promises, stating, "Young people deserve to know whether the promises made about our future are being backed by action." Shirley Barnea, another youth applicant from Quebec, highlighted the immediate impacts of climate change, referencing catastrophic wildfires, floods, extreme heat, and smoke-filled skies, while criticizing the federal government's continued fossil fuel expansion. Dr. Samantha Green, president of CAPE, further underscored the health implications, noting how doctors are witnessing climate change harm patients across Canada, from respiratory issues due to wildfire smoke to heat-related illnesses and disruptions to medical services.

Lawyers advising on environmental law, climate policy, or government accountability in Canada should closely monitor this case. The Federal Court's decision to allow the case to proceed means the interpretation of the Minister's duties under the CNZEAA, particularly regarding the 'may' vs. 'shall' in s. 11, will be fully litigated, potentially setting a significant precedent for enforcing climate commitments and challenging governmental discretion.

Source: Reporting based on court filings and public statements.