CEDH DATABASE FULL

On appeal, on, the First District Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal, affirming the lower court’s finding that the lawsuit raised nonjusticiable political questions.īoth the Circuit Court’s judgment and the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the first-instance judgment can be found at Summary: The claims in question were considered nonjusticiable because they “are inherently political questions that must be resolved by the political branches of government.”. On 9 June 2020, the Circuit Court for Leon County dismissed their case, finding that it could not grant the relief requested in light of the separation of powers clause contained in the state’s constitution. In this case, eight young people asserted that the “deliberate indifference” of the US state of Florida, its Governor Ron DeSantis, and other state agencies had violated their “fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes a stable climate system”. Her Majesty the Queen, Order of 16 November 2020, 2020 FC 1059.

CEDH DATABASE FULL

The full text of the judgment of the Federal Court is available via climatecasechart.įederal Court of Ottowa, Lho’imggin et al. not find that there is a sufficient legal component to anchor the analysis as this action is a political one that may touch on moral/strategic/ideological/historical or policy-based issues and determinations within the realm of the remaining branches of government.” It also found, concerning this case, that “not only is there not sufficient legality, but the remedies sought are not appropriate remedies, but rather solutions that are appropriate to be executed by the other branches of government.” This broad topic is beyond the reach of judicial interference. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the government to amend its environmental assessment statutes that apply to extant high GHG emitting projects, and an order requiring a complete, independent and timely annual account of Canada’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in a format that allows a comparison to be made with Canada’s fair carbon budget.Īmong other things, the Federal Court found that “this matter is not justiciable as it is the realm of the other two branches of government.

These include declaratory relief concerning Canada’s obligations to reduce its emissions and respect the plaintiffs’ rights, including the rights of future member of the Wet’suwet’en indigenous group. The applicants seek several different forms of relief. The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal on 10 December 2020 the appeal was still pending in August 2022. The Federal Court granted a motion to strike out the claim on 16 November 2020, finding that the case was not justiciable, lacked a reasonable cause of action, and did not seek legally available remedies. They invoke, among other things, their rights to life, liberty and security of person, and the right to equality. They also argue that the historical treatment and ongoing discrimination against indigenous peoples in Canada exacerbate the trauma of climate change. They argue that the effects of warming are already being felt on their territories, including in the form of negative health effects. The plaintiffs argue that the Canadian government has violated their constitutional and human rights by failing to meet its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This case was brought by two houses of the Wet’suwet’en indigenous group against Canada on 10 February 2020.

Cedh database