Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
A court case targeting Saskatchewan’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions and its plans to build new gas-fired power plants has come to an end.
An Oct. 10 decision from Court of King’s Bench Justice Holli Kuski Bassett concludes: “The Claim is struck in its entirety.”
That means the case cannot proceed.
The legal claim was brought in Spring 2023 by a number of individuals, along with a group known as Climate Justice Saskatoon (known legally as the applicants). It was filed against the Saskatchewan government, SaskPower, and the province’s Crown Investments Corporation (CIC), known legally as the respondents.
In October of 2024, the judge heard arguments on the government’s application to have the case thrown out, and whether the applicants should be allowed to amend their case.
The applicants proposed an amended claim which laid out the position that society is “in a time of dangerous climate change, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”
The case sought to assert that, among other things, the applicants’ constitutional rights were being violated by “government action that causes and continues to exacerbate the harm and intensity of climate change.”
Construction and operation of new gas-fired power plants in Saskatchewan was cited as the “government action.”
The respondents’ arguments were centred largely on whether the case and its pleadings were proper in terms of established law and court rules.
The respondents argued no.
The judge’s decision states that it does not “consider the merits of the issues advanced in the claim.” It was only limited to determining whether the claim could be amended as proposed, and whether it should be struck.
While the judge allowed certain amendments, and not others, the claim was ultimately struck.
The analysis contained within the judge’s 54-page decision is extensive, addressing multiple issues, and is not thoroughly referenced in this article.
She found the issues raised regarding the alleged rights violations were not “justiciable.”
“I am satisfied this is one of the very rare cases where questions raised in the Claim and the related relief sought from the Court are not resolved by the application of law or other objective standard, but rather by democratic accountability,” Kuski Bassett wrote.
The judge also wrote that the applicants were seeking “in essence court-directed legislative reform” and asked the court to “direct the legislative branch and control Government choices around electricity delivery.”
“In my view, to do so would require the court to disregard the time-honoured separation of powers in our constitutional democracy in a manner that exceeds its institutional capacity and legitimacy.”
However, the judge also wrote: “the material importance of protecting the environment remains.”
She noted her decision should not be interpreted to suggest the respondents are “free from constitutional scrutiny in appropriate circumstances regarding their climate change response.”
