Abstract
This paper explores climate change litigation in Canadian courts in two ways. First, I interrogate the role that provincial and federal Canadian judges play in combating climate change. I canvass a burgeoning literature on ‘role morality’ and place the Canadian judge in the unique position of being able to modify the behaviour of powerful Canadian actors. Judges are not subject to the political cycle like the elected branches of government. They are also not responsible for maximizing shareholder profits like MNC directors and officers. As such, in theory, they are able to contribute to combatting climate change in a way that other decision-makers cannot. The judge’s role morality consequently touches on perennial topics around the separation of powers and corporate purpose, both of which are implicated in climate change litigation. Second, I explore doctrinal challenges confronted by parties and judges involved in climate change litigation. There are a number of tort law, constitutional law, and corporate law doctrinal barriers that litigants have and will continue to face when they decide to sue governments and corporations for their respective contributions to climate change. Among these barriers are formalistic (or even parochial) understandings of, for instance, the corporate veil, the duty of care, foreseeability, causation, and standing. Also, it is unknown how Canadian courts will interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in constitutional claims against governments.
Presenters
Hassan AhmadAssistant Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Litigation, Courts, Judges, Law, Accountability, Compensation
