[co-author: Jonathan McKay - Articling Student]
In a 7-1 ruling
in
BP PLC et al v Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (19-1189), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether a climate change tort lawsuit seeking damages against several energy companies operating in the United States should be heard in federal court, instead of in state court.
The decision is a welcome reprieve for energy companies facing potential litigation across a multitude of jurisdictions in the United States, as it could potentially result in climate change claims falling under the jurisdiction of federal courts instead of state courts, and under federal law rather than state law.
[co-author: Brendan Sigalet, Articling Student]
U.S. courts have often relied on the political question doctrine to dismiss climate change actions. The Canadian equivalent of the political question doctrine, justiciability, has recently been considered by Canadian Court in cases involving
Charter-based climate change claims.
To be justiciable, claims must be within the authority and ability of the judiciary to decide, considering the Canadian constitutional system of government. It is generally recognized that it is not the function of the courts to establish what policy or law best advances the public interest and that courts may decline to decide such issues under the doctrine of justiciability.