CCentral-Main-logo-EN-trans

Convenience Central
Join our community
extra content

Ottawa’s carbon pricing law valid, Ontario’s top court rules

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.18.48 AMOntario’s top court has ruled the federal government’s carbon charge is constitutionally sound.

In a split decision, the five-judge panel rejected a challenge from Premier Doug Ford’s government to the validity of the carbon-pricing law.

Ottawa maintains it had to act to deal with the urgent threat of climate change as an issue of national concern.

The federal government said its approach-imposing a levy on gasoline and fossil fuels-respected provincial jurisdiction.

Ontario and three other provinces argued the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau overstepped its authority in imposing the charge.

Last month in a split decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal sided with Ottawa in a similar challenge.

The Doug Ford government challenged the constitutionality of the carbon-pricing law before a five-judge panel in April.

It argued the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau overstepped its authority in imposing the charge.

 

The federal government maintains the levy in Ontario (currently four cents a litre on gasoline) is a regulatory charge designed to change behaviour in favour of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government called the charge an illegal tax—another violation of the Constitution.

During four days of submissions, Ontario insisted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act would undermine co-operative federalism by allowing Ottawa to overstep the dividing line between federal and provincial spheres of authority.

Provincial lawyers told the Court of Appeal the federal government would end up with the power to regulate almost every facet of life, such as when you can drive, where you can live, or whether you can have a wood-burning fireplace. They also argued the province has its own approach to the climate-change issue.

For their part, federal lawyers argued the province was fearmongering. The law, they said, would not result in an expansion of constitutional powers that would give Ottawa carte blanche to regulate issues that fall squarely within provincial jurisdiction.

The act, which took effect April 1, was a legitimate response to potentially catastrophic climate change, federal lawyers argued.

The act currently only applies in four provinces—Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan—which Ottawa says don’t meet national standards.

In all, 14 interveners—among them some provinces, Indigenous groups and environmental and business organizations—lined up to defend or attack the federal law, with most siding with Ottawa. Indigenous groups, for example, stressed their vulnerability to global warming that they said could destroy their way of life.

Some observers said the Ontario challenge was more about politics than the environment.

The issue is expected to be ultimately decided before the country’s top court. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said it hear Saskatchewan’s challenge in December, after the October federal election.


Ontario court upholds stay of legal proceedings against 3 tobacco companies

An Ontario court has upheld an order that suspended legal proceedings against three major tobacco companies, rejecting arguments from lawyers representing Quebec smokers.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas McEwen issued his decision Wednesday but did not lay out his reasons, saying those would be released at a later date.

The companies _ JTI-Macdonald Corp., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. _ were granted the stay last month as part of the creditor protection process.

They obtained the protection shortly after Quebec’s highest court upheld a landmark decision that ordered them to pay more than $15 billion to smokers in two class-action lawsuits.

The companies have said they had no choice but to seek the stay so they could continue to operate as they try to negotiate a global settlement with all those who have claims against them, including the class-action members and several provincial governments.

But lawyers representing the class members argued the stay in their case should be revoked if the tobacco companies plan to appeal the Quebec ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

At a hearing earlier this month, they said the companies cannot negotiate a settlement in good faith while also challenging the findings of the court.

The lawyers said if the companies plan to seek leave to appeal, the matter should be sent back to the Quebec court so it halt the implementation of its ruling until the appeal process is complete.

In his decision, McEwen said the stay order would require parties to seek the court’s permission before launching new proceedings involving the companies, including any applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The judge had previously extended the order to June 28, with a hearing to be held a few days earlier.

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, which was behind the class-action suits, said it would hold off commenting on the ruling until the judge’s reasons were released.

Lawyers representing several provincial governments had opposed the Quebec lawyers’ application, saying one group of claimants should not be prioritized over others.