Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Climate change class actions and the International Bar Association (IBA) Model Statute

By David Konkin and Kelly Osaka
June 22, 2020
  • Class Action
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In an effort to lower the hurdles of climate change-based claims, the International Bar Association (IBA) has drafted a Model Statute for enactment by national and sub-national governments. Though the purpose of the Model Statute is to ease challenges to governments’ failures to act on climate change, it also provides a blueprint for legislation directed at corporations with significant greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), including class actions.

Such legislation has precedent in Canada, notably as employed by the provinces for claims against tobacco companies and opioid manufacturers. As noted in a previous Dentons Insight, several municipalities have requested that British Columbia enact legislation to support claims against GHG emitters and a bill to establish the liability of fossil fuel producers for climate-related harms was introduced in the Ontario Legislature. Here we will consider aspects of the Model Statute that may be incorporated in a provincial statute targeting corporations with significant GHG emissions.

Causation

Noting the difficulties faced in proving an act was a material cause of damage suffered by plaintiffs, the Model Statute relaxes the causation standard below a balance of probabilities. This approach draws in part on Canadian and English cases that have applied a more flexible “but for” causation test, requiring proof only of a “material contribution to risk of harm”. While this lower standard is not available for all tort cases, the inability of the applicable science to determine the specific source of the harm can provide a basis for relaxing the “but for” test to require only a material contribution to the harm. As causation is currently one of the most significant hurdles to climate change plaintiffs, legislation overriding the general standard would greatly improve the prospects of a plaintiff succeeding.

Evidence

The Model Statute proposes several modifications to the rules of evidence to reduce the time and cost of admitting evidence and proving that anthropogenically induced climate change is occurring with corresponding harms. The Model Statute permits the court to take judicial notice of the findings and conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Assessment Reports and Special Reports, only to be challenged with leave. Scientific records and materials prepared by or for government bodies are also deemed admissible.

Restrictions on defences

The Model Statute proposes eliminating key defences that a defendant would have to a climate change class action. Critically, the fact that a defendant is not the sole or substantial contributor to GHG emissions, or caused or permitted only a minor degree of the resulting harm would not be available defences. The removal of these defences would permit plaintiffs to claim against corporate emitters of all sizes and without regard to the potential liability of other emitters not party to the proceeding.

Costs

The Model Statute grants judicial discretion to waive entitlement costs or to set a maximum costs amount that any party could recover. It also bars awards of security for costs. Similar measures already exist in some provincial class proceedings legislation and could further encourage plaintiffs to bring claims by reducing the financial jeopardy that could result from a costs award against them. Conversely, the Model Statute grants the court discretion to order advance costs to be paid to the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The changes proposed by the Model Statute would have significant implications for many of the over 1,300 climate change-related cases proceeding worldwide. Indeed, simply the changes to causation or restrictions on defences would have vast implications for plaintiffs’ likelihood of success at certification, where the bar for demonstrating a workable case methodology is already low. While the IBA tasked itself with producing a Model Statute to assist individuals and organizations with holding governments to account for their GHG reduction efforts, or lack thereof, the Model Statute is also instructive of provisions that could be included in future legislation directed at corporate emitters, significantly increasing their exposure to climate change class actions.


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
class action, climate change, green house gas emissions, legislation
David Konkin

About David Konkin

David is an associate in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group, with a particular focus on commercial and corporate disputes, class actions, regulatory and administrative matters, privacy, fraud and anti-corruption/bribery.

All posts Full bio

Kelly Osaka

About Kelly Osaka

Kelly Osaka is a member of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group and the Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group. In particular, her practice focuses on shareholder disputes, class actions, privacy law claims and regulatory investigations. Kelly has appeared as counsel before all levels of court in Alberta and British Columbia, as well as the Alberta Securities Commission, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Securities Litigation

Urgent motions in the COVID-19 framework

By Marina Sampson, Matthew Fleming, and Eleonora Izmaylov
  • Class Action
  • Covid-19

Long-term care facilities class action trends

By Matthew Fleming, Marina Sampson, Chloe Snider, and Raj Mittal
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation

Heller v Uber: The Supreme Court finds arbitration clause unconscionable and establishes new test for determining when to stay litigation in favour of arbitration

By Michael D. Schafler, Marina Sampson, Chloe Snider, and Meredith Bacal

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons’ polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

Dentons digital

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • General
  • International Arbitration
  • Mining
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2021 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site