Background
Ontario youth challenged provisions of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 and the province’s emissions-reduction target, alleging violations of ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The application judge dismissed their claims, but in 2024 the Court of Appeal held that Ontario, having voluntarily assumed a statutory obligation to combat climate change, had to produce a Charter-compliant plan and target. The court remitted the case for a new hearing because the necessary Charter issues had not been assessed under the correct analytical framework.
Through an administrative oversight, the Court of Appeal’s formal order was never issued and entered. After the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal, Ontario repealed the statutory provisions pertinent to the litigation and argued that the application had become moot. The youth applicants then moved to reopen the appeal so the Court of Appeal could decide additional grounds previously argued but not resolved in its 2024 reasons.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the motion to reopen. Although an appellate court has inherent authority to reconsider a decision before its formal order is entered, reopening is rare and requires circumstances in which a very serious injustice would otherwise result. The court concluded that this demanding threshold was not met.
It was premature to assume that Ontario’s legislative repeal made the remitted proceeding moot because the application judge retained discretion under the governing mootness principles to hear the case. Moreover, the existing record lacked the findings needed to resolve both the Charter claims addressed in the 2024 decision and the broader claims left undecided. The proper next step remained adjudication before the application judge, where the youth could seek to clarify, expand, or amend their claims and supplement the evidentiary record. Costs were left for written submissions.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may reopen an appeal before its formal order is entered, but only in rare circumstances where reconsideration is clearly required in the interests of justice.
- Repeal of the challenged legislation does not automatically end the proceeding; the application judge must decide whether to hear an otherwise moot case under the applicable mootness framework.
- The youth applicants may pursue reframed or expanded Charter claims before the application judge, including through amended pleadings and an augmented evidentiary record.
Why It Matters
The decision does not determine whether Ontario’s former emissions target violated ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter. Instead, it preserves the procedural course established in the court’s 2024 ruling and leaves the constitutional and mootness questions for the Superior Court to decide on a fuller record.
For climate litigants, the ruling underscores both the possibility of continued constitutional adjudication after legislation is repealed and the importance of developing a trial-level record before appellate courts address complex Charter claims.