Youth Climate Litigation – Resilient LLP (formerly DeMarco Allan LLP)

Four young Canadians have launched a legal claim against the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investment Board (CPP Investments), Canada’s largest pension fund manager, alleging that it is mismanaging and has underestimated climate-related financial risks to the $732B in assets under management of the CPP. The claim alleges that by underestimating and failing to disclose climate-related financial risks, CPP Investments could expose Canadians to dramatically reduced retirement benefits, the need for substantially higher contribution rates, or both. This bulletin briefly summarizes key information regarding the claim. Overview. The claim notes that CPP Investments has publicly recognized climate change as a significant investment risk, but “backtracked” on its net-zero commitment earlier this year. The applicants allege that this reversal, combined with ongoing fossil fuel investments, demonstrates an absence of sufficient measures to manage climate-related financial risks in the best interests of younger contributors. The youth applicants, which are all anticipated to receive pension benefits after 2050, argue that by severely underestimating and failing to disclose climate-related financial risks, CPP Investments is failing to: properly manage climate-related financial risks, thereby jeopardizing the long-term value of the portfolio and the security of contributors’ benefits; and adequately identify and assess climate-related financial risks to CPP funds, including in its use and reporting of the MSCI Climate Value-at-Risk model without describing how it applies judgement to the results despite the alleged uncertainty regarding the model’s ability to adequately capture systemic risks from higher degrees of warming. The claim relies on the latest research on the severe impacts of climate change (including the triggering of tipping points and cascading risks) on society and financial systems beyond 1.5°C of warming. According to Ecojustice, the claim is the first climate case against a pension fund investment manager “anchored in the duty of impartiality and even-handedness in a multi-generational context” and is also…

The Court of Appeal for Ontario (ONCA) today released its unanimous decision (the Decision) on an appeal of the dismissal of a youth-led constitutional challenge of Ontario’s emissions target (see our earlier bulletin here). The ONCA allowed the appeal, determining that the Ontario Superior Court (ONSC) application judge erred in characterizing the case as a positive rights case and remitted it to the ONSC for reconsideration. The case is the first in Canada to consider whether a government’s approach to climate change can violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). This bulletin briefly provides key background details of the case and the main findings of the Decision. Background. The appellants, seven Ontario youths, some of whom are Indigenous, brought an application for (i) a declaration that Ontario’s 30% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target (the Target) under section 3(1) of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (the CTCA) – implemented through Ontario’s “A Made-in-Ontario Environmental Plan” (the Plan) – and section 16 of the CTCA, repealing Ontario’s Cap-and-Trade system, were unconstitutional as they violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, and (ii) an order declaring their Charter rights have been violated and requiring Ontario to set a science-based emissions reduction target and to revise the Plan in accordance with international standards. The application judge dismissed the application. While the judge found the issue of the appellants’ sections 7 and 15 Charter rights justiciable, she characterized it as a positive rights claim and concluded that any deprivation of life or security of the person under section 7 was not contrary to fundamental justice, and that section 15 did not impose a positive duty on Ontario to act against climate change. The Decision. The following is a brief overview of the ONCA’s main findings: The application judge erred in her analysis of the case as…