Canadian carbon tax is here to stay: Supreme Court rules Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act constitutional
Kevin Landry and William Wojcik
In September 2020 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, a case featuring appeals from Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta with respect to the constitutionality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA”). Much of the debate focused on two parts of the GGPPA:
- the regulatory charge on fuel imposed under Part I of the GGPPA (“Fuel Charge”); and,
- the Output Based Pricing System (“OBPS”) imposed under Part II of the GGPPA.
See our previous article for a refresher on the Fuel Charge and the OBPS.
The decision
On March 25, 2021 the Supreme Court release their decision. A majority of six ruled that: “The GGPPA is constitutional. It sets minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern under the peace, order, and good government (“POGG”) clause of s. 91 of the Constitution Act 1867”.
The majority also decided that the fuel and excess emission charges under the GGPPA were sufficiently connected to the regulatory scheme of the GGPPA to be considered constitutionally valid regulatory charges that advanced the GGPPA by altering behaviour as opposed to taxes (which are limited to recovery of costs for the government, and require parliament to enact instead of just the Governor in Council).
What this decision means for those subject to the carbon tax
Aside from developing the case law surrounding POGG in a significant way (which is outside the scope of this update), the decision all but assures that carbon pricing in Canada will rise in accordance with the government’s previously published plan: A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy. Expected increases are $15 per year per tonne of carbon pollution, starting in 2023, rising to a total of $170 per tonne of carbon pollution in 2030.
Background: Appellate court decisions
Ontario
In the Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 544 the Ontario Court of Appeal decided (with a lone dissenter) that the GGPPA was constitutional. The majority concluded that the GGPPA was permissible under the national concern branch of the POGG powers of the federal government.
Saskatchewan
In the Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 SKCA 40 the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan decided in a 3-2 decision that the GGPPA was constitutional and that the purpose of the GGPPA (setting a minimum price on greenhouse gas emissions nationally in order to mitigate their use) was of national concern and fell under the POGG authority of Parliament.
Alberta
In the Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74 the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that the both the Fuel Charge and OBPS were unconstitutional in their entirety but declined to express any opinion on other parts of the GGPPA. In that case a lone dissenter found the GGPPA constitutional.
This update is intended for general information only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a lawyer respecting the reader’s specific circumstances. Each legal or regulatory situation is different and requires review of the relevant facts and applicable law.
If you have questions about the above, please contact the authors to discuss your needs for specific legal advice relating to the particular circumstances of your situation.
Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, Stewart McKelvey is not responsible for informing you of future legal developments related to this update.
Archive
Vasu Sivapalan and Meg Collins On May 5, 2017, An Act Respecting the Opening of Sealed Adoption Records (“Act”) received royal assent, leading to significant changes for birth parents and adoptees across the province. As…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Recent amendments to the Nova Scotia Insurance Act are designed “to protect the financial interests of an innocent person when the person’s property is damaged by another person with whom that person shares…
Read MoreBrian G. Johnston, QC Cannabis legalization is coming. The legislation is expected to pass by July with legalization becoming effective by September. Employers should take notice because: 1. There is already a lot of cannabis…
Read MoreJanet Clark and Sean Seviour A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies determination of what is “reasonably foreseeable”: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19. The case involved two…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor & Michelle Chai A recent Supreme Court decision tackled two issues that have proven complex in Nova Scotia law: summary judgment and limitation periods. The Plaintiff in Cameron v Nova Scotia Association of…
Read MoreBrian G. Johnston, QC The Arbitrator in Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association and IBEW, Local 1620 dismissed a grievance on April 30, 2018 concluding: The Employer did not place the Grievor in employment at…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan Employers, and benefit providers on their behalf, make policy decisions as to what drugs or benefits (including monetary limits) will be covered by benefit plans. The Board of Trustees in…
Read MoreErin Best The decision of Justice Handrigan in Ryan v. Curlew is the first motor vehicle accident personal injury decision to come out of the Newfoundland and Labrador courts in quite some time. The case…
Read MoreRob Aske The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices. Breach reporting under PIPEDA Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)…
Read MoreChad Sullivan Overview An Indigenous law professor filed a human rights complaint against the University of British Columbia claiming the university discriminated against her in failing to consider her less traditional scholarly work as akin…
Read More