OTTAWA — A warning from the United Nations' top court that failing to address climate change could violate international law could lead to greater public scrutiny of major projects in Canada, one expert says.
The International Court of Justice opinion, released Wednesday, said everyone is entitled to a habitable planet.
The non-binding opinion applies to all countries and paves the way for legal actions. Those actions could include states challenging other states before the International Court of Justice, lawsuits and legal instruments like investment agreements that have to conform with international law.
Sabaa Khan, the David Suzuki Foundation’s climate director, said the court explicitly stated that any move to expand the fossil fuel industry could be seen as a breach of international legal obligations.
"For a country like Canada that has had historically high emissions, that has the means necessary to accelerate its decarbonization, I think that it's clear more than ever that our government really has to eliminate any sort of public support of fossil fuels," she said. "I think there's going to be much greater public scrutiny when it comes to nation-building projects."
The Liberal government has passed controversial legislation granting cabinet the power to fast-track major projects it deems to be in the national interest, and is set to open its major projects office by Labour Day. Projects qualifying for accelerated approval could include ports, railways, mining projects and pipelines.
Governments have been encouraging First Nations leaders to support such projects through loan guarantees and promises of financial incentives.
But many First Nations leaders fear their ways of life could be irreparably harmed if governments evade environmental standards. Many Indigenous leaders have also argued elements of the law could be used to undermine their rights.
Khan said she expects the court opinion will affect the work being done on major projects.
"There's no way to look at this without seeing clearly that investment in fossil fuels is a breach of human rights law," she said.
"I think that it lays down a legal foundation that can really create that certainty for investors where if you start funding or you continue funding fossil fuel developments, then you are at risk of being held responsible."
Khan said Bill C-5 states that approved major projects have to meet Canada's climate change objectives. She said the government will have to take the court opinion into consideration.
"If it doesn't, then it could open up just more legal challenges to the way that law now is being implemented," Khan said, adding that Canada should be investing in things like renewable energy and interprovincial electricity grids.
Khan said that while the opinion is non-binding, it has a "very strong interpretive power."
Supreme Court of Canada decisions often cite advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice, she said.
Fraser Thomson, a lawyer at Ecojustice, said International Court of Justice advisory opinions are viewed as authoritative interpretations of international law around the world and have influenced court decisions in Canada.
"Canadian courts at every level have to look to these opinions when they are faced with interpreting what is international law and how it impacts Canadian domestic law," he said.
Thomson said it's reasonable to assume the court opinion will open the door to more climate litigation in Canada.
"All governments are now on notice that they cannot continue to put our future at risk," he said, adding that Canada could be asking for legal trouble if it decides to build more pipelines.
Keean Nembhard, a spokesperson for the office of Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, said the government recognizes the "crucial role" Canada plays in contributing to the global fight against climate change and remains committed to that work.
The court opinion also said that some countries or individuals suffering from the effects of climate change could be eligible for compensation. The judges acknowledged that financial compensation might be difficult to calculate.
The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states are parties to the court.
— With files from Alessia Passafiume, Dylan Robertson and The Associated Press
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025.
Catherine Morrison, The Canadian Press
