Court ruling could finally hold Canada's feet to the fire

A climate change hearing at the U.N. International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, was held just 10 days after nations gathered for their latest climate conference, COP-29, in Baku, Azerbaijan. Although the court hearing from December 2-13, 2024, has not received the same attention, its ruling could be consequential.

Representing some of the vulnerable states paying the highest price but least responsible for the adverse effects of a rapidly heating planet, a group called Vanuatu and Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change asked the U.N, General Assembly to obtain an advisory opinion from the IJC on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change” and the legal consequences of failing to uphold them. The ICJ 15-judge panel heard from over 100 countries and International organizations. 

Payam Akhavan, senior fellow at Massey College, and 2017 Massey Lecturer, served as legal counsel in the hearings for Bangladesh and the Commission of Small Island States. In an interview with CBC’s Ideas, Akhavan said: “This is the most consequential case before the court because it really implicates the survival of humankind.” He castigated developed countries and petrostates for their “unwillingness to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, to prevent harm and pay compensation for the damage that they're causing.”

Developed countries evade accountability

Most developed countries and petrostates, including Canada, sought to evade accountability. They argued the ICJ should not rule on whether countries have violated past climate obligations, nor whether states have a legal responsibility for reparations to states damaged by climate change.

For them, the Paris Agreement-aligned climate conferences [COPS] remain the best way forward even though 30 years of these gatherings have failed to put the world on track and keep global temperatures well below 2°C by the end of this century. In 2024, it was the first year when the average temperature exceeded the Paris Agreement threshold of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level. 

Canada’s climate record 

At COP 29, developed countries, including Canada, pledged to triple their financial support to developing countries to $300 billion per year by 2035 to help them adapt to climate threats, help pay for loss and damage, and mitigate emissions. However, this was far from the $1.3 trillion demanded by Global South countries. 

Their pledges bear little relation to the massive global fossil fuel subsidies which totaled an estimated $7 trillion in 2022. Canada’s financial support for the oil and gas industry from 2021 to 2023 was at least $65 billion. 

A November 2024 report from Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found emissions here had declined by just 7.1 per cent since 2005, far from its target of reducing emissions by 40 per cent by 2030. 

The climate change performance index 2025 ranks Canada among the worst, 62 out of 67 countries, for its overall climate change performance, which involves a combination of emissions, renewable energy, energy use and policy. 

Canadian-based fossil fuel companies' production expansion plans over the next few decades are among the largest in the world. A large majority of Canadians want the next government to take more action on climate change.

The Court’s ruling: potential scenarios

The ICJ is scheduled to release its decision in 2025. While not binding under international law, the court’s opinion will provide a blueprint for holding major greenhouse gas- (GHG) emitting countries accountable — both governments and corporations — and affirm the right of climate vulnerable countries to remedy and reparations. 

A strongly-worded ruling could accelerate pressure on countries to ramp up mitigation and adaptation commitments. It will be cited in thousands of climate lawsuits worldwide which have seen a major increase in recent years. 

A relevant Canadian example: Ontario’s  Court of Appeal ruled in favour of a youth-led climate lawsuit against the provincial government. It is the first case in Canada to consider whether a government’s approach to climate change has the potential to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has just been appealed by the Ontario government to the Supreme Court, whose ruling could be influenced by the ICJ opinion.

The court’s ruling will hopefully be a small step toward avoiding a looming planetary catastrophe. Or avoiding, as Mark Carney in his famous Lloyd’s of London speech, called it, “the tragedy of the horizon.” In the words of Payam Akhavan, “what's happening to the small island states… today, is going to happen to all of us tomorrow.”

Bruce Campbell is adjunct professor, York University, Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change; Senior Fellow, Toronto Metropolitan University, Centre for Free Expression; and former Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives