The La Rose v. His Majesty the King plaintiffs. Photo: Robin Loznak.
La Rose v. HIS Majesty the KING
Our Children’s Trust has supported youth plaintiffs in Canada since 2019, most recently in the youth-led federal climate case, La Rose v. His Majesty the king.
In October 2019, fifteen youth plaintiffs, ages 10 to 19 years old, filed the La Rose lawsuit, claiming that the federal government of Canada is contributing to dangerous climate change. The case argues that the youth are already being harmed by climate change and the federal government is violating their rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for failing to protect essential public trust resources. The youth plaintiffs also allege that Canada’s conduct violates their right to equality under section 15 of the Charter, since youth are disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change.
The lawsuit asks the Federal Court of Canada to declare that the government’s conduct violates the Charter and the government’s public trust duties, and order the government to prepare and implement a climate recovery plan to reduce Canada’s GHG emissions and decarbonize Canada’s energy system in line with what scientists say is necessary to stabilize the climate system and protect the rights of youth.
The youth plaintiffs are represented by Catherine Boies Parker, QC and David Wu of Arvay Finlay LLP and Chris Tollefson and Anthony Ho of Tollefson Law Corporation; the brilliant trailblazer Joseph J. Arvay, QC was also an architect and co-counsel for this case before his passing in 2020. The plaintiffs are supported by Our Children’s Trust and The David Suzuki Foundation, a leading Canadian environmental non-governmental organization, as well as the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation (CELL), an educational partner using this lawsuit to train the next generation of public interest lawyers.
Current Status:
On February 14-15, 2023, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented their arguments before a panel of Federal Court of Appeal judges via a virtual hearing. During the two-day hearing, the youth’s attorneys argued as to why the case should be allowed to proceed to trial. The youth plaintiffs and their attorneys are now awaiting a ruling from the court.
TIMELINE:
The following is a timeline of major moments, filings, and rulings in La Rose v. His Majesty the King, from 2019 to today:
“October 25, 2019: Case Filed!
Fifteen Canadian youth filed a lawsuit against their federal government in the Federal Court of Canada.”
“May 11, 2020: Case Management Conference
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs met by phone with attorneys representing the federal government of Canada for a case management conference . During this meeting, the federal government of Canada informed the Federal Court that it planned to file a motion to strike the youth plaintiffs’ claim in order to stop the case from proceeding to trial. ”
“July 10, 2020: Defendants Move to Strike
Attorneys for the federal government moved to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.”
“August 31, 2020: Response Filed
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed their response to the Canadian government’s motion to strike the youths’ claims. ”
“September 24, 2020: An Online Briefing
An online briefing with attorneys and youth plaintiffs was held to discuss the case in advance of the upcoming hearing. A recording of this online event can be viewed here.”
“September 30-October 1, 2020: Headed to Court!
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented arguments during a two day public hearing in Vancouver, British Columbia.”
“October 27, 2020: Motion to Strike Granted
In spite of acknowledging that “the negative impact of climate change to the Plaintiffs and all Canadians is significant, both now and looking forward into the future,” Justice Michael D. Manson of the Federal Court of Canada granted the government’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs intend to appeal.”
“November 24, 2020: Notice of Appeal Filed
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals, alleging Justice Manson erred in striking the plaintiffs’ claims in his October 27th ruling.”
“May 3, 2021: Opening Brief Filed
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed their opening brief arguing that the lower court’s October’s ruling incorrectly struck their claims.
”
“February 14-15, 2023: Virtual Court Hearing
On February 14-15, 2023, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented their arguments before a panel of Federal Court of Appeal judges via a virtual hearing. During the two-day hearing, the youth’s attorneys argued as to why the case should be allowed to proceed to trial. ”
“TODAY: Awaiting Court Ruling
The youth plaintiffs and their attorneys are awaiting a court ruling from the Federal Court of Appeals as to whether the case will proceed to trial. ”