COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO SOPHIA MATHUR, a minor by her litigation guardian CATHERINE ORLANDO, ZOE

The Appellants argued that climate change poses “dangerous and existential risks to the life and well-being of Ontarians and the world” and that the Target “effectively authorizes an overall amount of GHG that, in turn, will lead to section 7 deprivations” -2- of life and security of the person.1 According to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), climate change “is a threat of the highest order to. [...] 2(b), where the majority of the SCC adverted to the practical “necess[ity]” of placing a higher onus on the claimant “given the ease with which [they] can typically show a limit to free expression under the Irwin Toy test.”10 8. [...] 21 The risk of requiring under-resourced plaintiffs to relitigate if/when the government’s response to a declaration is unsatisfactory is amplified in the context of climate change due to the nature of the harm that may befall youth and future generations: the longer governmental failure to adequately reduce GHG emissions persists, the more significant the future harm to future generations may be. [...] Rather, it is a scenario in which time is of the essence – the longer the delay in mounting an adequate governmental response, the more severely the rights and interests of youth and future generations will be harmed. [...] Life, liberty and Security of person 7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.