Section 7

Two step Process:

1.Has the claimant's right to life, liberty or security been violated?

•Helpful jurisprudence:

• Syncrude v. Canada, 2016 FCA – “it is uncontroverted that GHGs are harmful to both health and the environment and as such, constitute an evil that justifies the exercise of the criminal law power”

• Godbout v. Longueuil, 1997 SCC – Court held that s.7 captures the right to choose where to establish one’s home

•How can you apply these decisions to your case? What other arguments can you make? Please discuss as a group.

2.Is the deprivation in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?

•The question would then be whether the state’s conduct in authorizing, enabling, and investing in activities that lead to harmful levels of GHG emissions is arbitrary,  overbroad, or grossly disproportionate relative to the purpose of such authorizations and investments. 

•Take some time to draw up some arguments for each principle and then discuss as a class

•Mathur v. Canada, 2019

•“(Canada’s GHG) target will ensure a high level of GHG emissions that will contribute to death, serious illness, and severe harm to human health of Ontario’s youth and future generations, inferring with their right to life and security of person” – SOC para 68

•“Section 7 of the Charter must also include a right to a stable climate system, capable of providing youth and future generations with a sustainable future, as this directly implicates their right to life” – SOC para 76

•See Full argument on pages 26-30 found here.

•La Rose v. Canada, 2019

•“The Impugned Conduct deprives the plaintiffs and all children and youth present and future of the right to security of the person because it increases the risk of, and exposes these vulnerable persons to, physical injury and disease, and serious psychological, social and spiritual trauma resulting from Climate Change Impacts, and interferes with their capacity for growth and development.”

•See full argument on pages 57-59 found here.