Youth & Advocacy Groups Fight Back as Ottawa Moves to Strike Climate Accountability Case

Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – As communities across Canada are reeling from a summer of breathing in wildfire smoke, evacuating from their homes, and navigating extreme heat and flooding, Prime Minister Carney is trying to keep youth and advocacy groups from having their day in court over Canada’s failure to have a credible plan to meet its legally binding 2030 climate target.

In June 2026, youth applicants Sophia Mathur, Marie Maltais and Shirley Barnea, alongside Environmental Defence and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), launched their case, alleging that the federal government has abandoned or weakened key measures underpinning Canada’s 2030 climate plan without updating it as required under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (CNZEAA). The applicants are represented by lawyers at Ecojustice.

On August 14, 2026, the federal government filed a motion to strike the case before it could proceed to a full hearing on the merits. Court challenges of this nature are intended to proceed expeditiously and without delay. Yet Canada’s motion has caused delays to the timely resolution of this important issue.

The applicants remain undeterred, with youth applicant Marie Maltais sharing: “Across the country, Canadians are living through the devastating reality of not having a meaningful plan to address climate change. Yet, at this critical moment, the government is fighting to throw our case out of court, while simultaneously moving ahead with fossil fuel expansion and rolling back key climate protections.”

“Our case is asking a simple question: where is the government’s plan to meet Canada’s 2030 climate target?” adds youth applicant Sophia Mathur. “If the Carney government believes its climate plan is credible, it should be willing to defend it in court.”

Yesterday, the applicants have chosen to fight back against the government’s attempts to strike their case and have filed their legal submissions opposing the motion and seeking a Court ordered expeditious hearing on the merits of their case. The federal government must respond by Friday, September 4, 2026.

Canada’s 2030 target requires a 40–45 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels. The applicants argue that the government’s own projections show existing and announced measures falling significantly short of that target.

For physicians like Dr. Samantha Green, President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, these impacts are not abstract: “Doctors are already seeing climate change harm patients’ health across Canada: children struggling to breathe through wildfire smoke, older patients whose hearts and kidneys can’t cope with extreme heat, surgeries postponed by evacuations. In medicine, delaying treatment can cost lives. Delaying action on climate change is no different. Every year our federal government fails to cut emissions is a year of harm we can’t undo.”

Julia Levin, Environmental Defence Associate Director, National Climate describes the government’s approach as a dangerous step backwards at a time when Canadians are already experiencing worsening climate impacts: “Canadians are watching their communities burn and flood while this government doubles down on fossil fuel expansion. You cannot claim climate leadership while dismantling the policies needed to meet your own climate target. The federal government should be strengthening accountability, not asking the Court to shut down a case that’s trying to determine if it is following the law.”

The case does not ask the Court to dictate which climate policies the government must adopt. Rather, the applicants argue that the government must maintain an up-to-date, credible plan capable of achieving the target it has committed to meet under federal law.

Ecojustice lawyer, Fraser Thomson adds: “The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that climate change is an existential threat of the highest order to our country, and indeed the world. When governments are not only failing to address this crisis but are also failing to follow their own laws, the Courts have a duty to step in.”

For the youth applicants, the government’s motion comes after years of hearing political leaders promise climate action while young people experience the consequences of a warming climate. They are not asking for more promises — they want a plan.

“It’s not lost on young people that, at the precise moment when Canadians need stronger climate protections, the federal government is weakening those measures and walking away from its legally binding 2030 climate target,” says youth applicant Shirley Barnea. “As communities experience the escalating impacts of climate change, the government should be strengthening its climate plan — not abandoning the measures needed to meet its own target.”

The Federal Court will now consider the government’s motion to strike and the applicants’ response. The youth and their organizational partners are asking the Court to allow the case to proceed to a full hearing.

Background

For additional information, please find our media backgrounder here.

Additional resources