The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is the department of the Government of Canada responsible for coordinating environmental policies and programs, as well as preserving and enhancing the natural environment and renewable resources. It is also colloquially known by its former name, Environment Canada.
The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. However, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced "Reggie") is the first mandatory market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector. RGGI compliance obligations apply to fossil-fueled power plants 25 megawatts (MW) and larger within the 11-state region. Pennsylvania's participation in the RGGI cooperative was ruled unconstitutional on November 1, 2023, although that decision has been appealed. North Carolina's entrance into RGGI has been blocked by the enactment of the state's fiscal year 2023–25 budget.
Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, commonly referred to as the Alberta Reference, was a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that section 2(d) did not include the right to strike. In 2015, Alberta Reference was overruled, with the Court recognizing a right to strike in the Charter.
American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.
Scott Moe is a Canadian politician serving as the 15th and current premier of Saskatchewan since February 2, 2018. He is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan for the riding of Rosthern-Shellbrook, first elected in 2011. He served in the Saskatchewan Party cabinet from 2014 to 2017 under the premiership of Brad Wall, twice as minister of environment and also as minister of advanced education. In January 2018 he was chosen to succeed Wall as leader of the Saskatchewan Party. He led the party to a fourth consecutive majority mandate in the 2020 provincial election.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.
Malcolm H. Rowe is a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Rowe is the first judge from Newfoundland and Labrador to sit on the Supreme Court.
Grant A. Huscroft is a Canadian jurist and legal scholar. He has served as a justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario since 2014.
Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.
Carbon pricing in Canada is implemented either as a regulatory fee or tax levied on the carbon content of fuels at the Canadian provincial, territorial or federal level. Provinces and territories of Canada are allowed to create their own system of carbon pricing as long as they comply with the minimum requirements set by the federal government; individual provinces and territories thus may have a higher tax than the federally mandated one but not a lower one. Currently, all provinces and territories are subject to a carbon pricing mechanism, either by an in-province program or by one of two federal programs. As of April 2023 the federal minimum tax is set at CA$65 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, set to increase to CA$170 in 2030.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is a Canadian federal law establishing a set of minimum national standards for carbon pricing in Canada to meet emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. It was passed as Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 – an omnibus budget bill – during the 42nd Parliament of Canada. The law came into force immediately upon receiving royal assent on June 21, 2018.
Dobie v Temporalities Board is a Canadian constitutional law case. It was decided in 1881 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The case concerned the power of the provinces and the federal Parliament to deal with legal rights created by statutes enacted prior to Confederation in 1867.
Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada [2015] 1 SCR 3 is a leading Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court concluded that the exclusion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers from unionization and collective bargaining was unconstitutional, overruling Delisle v Canada. Along with Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan and Meredith v Canada , the decision in MPAO represented a significant evolution in the interpretation of section 2(d), clarifying the legal standard applicable under that provision.
