At issue: Whether AGL's Demerger Booklet provided adequate disclosure for shareholders to make a fairly informed decision in exercising their vote on whether or not to support the demerger.
At issue: Whether the decision of a Mines Inspector under the Mines Act (British Columbia) to issue a permit to operate a rock quarry was unreasonable because the Mines Inspector failed to consider the climate change impacts of the proposed quarry.
At issue: Whether to grant leave to appeal the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Raincoast Conservation Foundation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2019 FCA 224 (No. 19-A-35) dismissing the applicants’ motion for leave to start an application for judicial review against the Governor in Council’s decision to approve the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project for a second time under the National Energy Board Act.
At issue: Whether the applicants had standing in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to challenge, among other things, the decision of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to approve a highway realignment project related to the Goldboro LNG Project.
At issue: Whether the government of British Columbia’s 2021 Climate Change Accountability Report issued under the Climate Change Accountability Act meets the requirements under that Act.
At issue: Whether Shell’s Drive Carbon Neutral program violates the Canadian Competition Act by making false and/or misleading representations to the public.
At issue: Whether, by virtue of requiring the phasing out of coal-fired electricity emissions, the defendants had de facto expropriated the plaintiffs’ royalty interest in coal from a coal mine in Alberta, Canada.
At issue: Whether the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s decision to approve the Bay du Nord Development Project was within his jurisdiction under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and was reasonable.
At issue: Holding the Board of Directors of Shell Liable under the UK Companies Act s.172 and 174. ClientEarth UK are arguing that the board has not implemented a climate strategy that is in keeping with the Paris Agreement goal.
At issue: Whether associations have standing to act in defense of a collective interest and obtain a measure of inquiry against a French company carrying out activities in a foreign country?
At issue: Lack of disclosure of information on supply chain control in relation to the risk of human rights violations by cobalt suppliers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
At issue: Whether a permit for the construction and use of a biomass facility is lawful, considering the negative effects of higher emissions of nitrogen and CO2 on nature and the environment.
At issue: Alleged violations of human rights related to pollution, waste and effects on climate change resulting from the operation of a number of Chinese-supported coal fired plants operating or planned to operate in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At issue: Whether Tiwi Islanders were adequately consulted and environmental and climate harms properly assessed for the proposed Barossa pipeline that would run through a habitat protection zone near the Tiwi Islands.
At issue: Whether gas flaring resulting from a private company’s oil extraction contributes to climate change and associated violations of the rights of nature and the rights of indigenous peoples living in the vicinity of the operation’s site.
At issue: Whether Canada’s feed-in tariff program for electricity produced from renewable energy represents a violation of the national treatment provisions due to its local content requirements and whether it represents a prohibited subsidy.
At issue: Whether the changes in the government policies related to lithium exploitation for the country's energy transition was done without public participation and assessment of environmental impacts.
At issue: Whether VW is infringing on the right to climate protection by not committing to achieve carbon neutrality in the production and intended use of internal combustion engine cars.
At issue: Whether TotalEnergies’ campaign on aiming for ‘net zero’ by 2050, becoming a major player in the energy transition and the environmental virtues and transition role of gas and biofuels are deceptive marketing practices.
At issue: Whether the modification of the period to submit the programs for control and prevention of methane emissions in the hydrocarbon sector is unconstitutional.
At issue: Whether Uganda has failed to fulfil its positive obligations under climate change and disaster management law to manage the risk of landslides in the Bududa district.
At issue: Whether the national energy policy objective of reducing GHG emissions by 40% between 1990 and 2030 applies to private companies and whether the limited extension of urban development near coastlines rule applies to environmental authorization.
At issue: Whether an oil exploration focused seismic survey challenges constitutional rights regarding consultation, conservation, cultural and spiritual livelihood while highlighting also negatively impacting climate change.
At issue: Whether the issuance of mining titles for natural resource exploration and exploitation activities in the Combeima and Cocora rivers violated human rights obligations.
At issue: Whether the lack of access to drinking water as a result of a decrease in natural water reservoirs due to climate change and the lack of adequate infrastructure by the Colombian government violated human rights.
At issue: Whether to grant humanitarian protection to individuals exposed to a real risk to their right to life in the country of origin when such risk is due to an adverse social, environmental and climate situation and not to an armed conflict.
At issue: Whether the government's energy decarbonization plan failed to include the participation of workers and violated their human rights under a just transition.
At issue: Whether the SoS’s adoption of the Net Zero Strategy did not discharge his duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, and whether the adoption of the Heat and Buildings Strategy has meant that the SoS has breached the Equality Act 2010 (FoE’s Claim).
Whether the SoS’s adoption of the Net Zero Strategy did not discharge his duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, and whether these duties had been interpreted compatibly with human rights obligations (ClientEarth’s and the Good Law Project’s claims).
At issue: Whether Norway has violated the fundamental rights of Norwegian citizens through the adoption of the decision to license new blocks of Barents Sea for development of deep-sea oil and gas extraction and through the failure to take the necessary measure to address the risk of the climate crisis.
At issue: Whether choosing to prosecute an XR protester for the offense of public nuisance was an abuse of process where alternative statutory offenses were available.
At issue: Whether a Commission regulation fixing emission values for real driving emissions tests for new light vehicles prevents local governments from imposing restrictions on the circulation of passenger vehicles in relation to their pollutant emissions.
At issue: Whether there was a conflict of interest created when an oil company executive served on the board of directors of a public institution that was deciding whether to establish a research center funded by the oil company.
At issue: Whether climate activists protesting the expansion of a Paris airport acted in a “state of necessity” to warn about the effects of climate change.
At issue: Whether the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development decision to approve the offshore exploration of fossil fuels must be halted and declared null and void for its impacts on climate change.
At issue: Whether the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development decision to approve the offshore exploration of fossil fuels must be halted and declared null and void for its impacts on the Southern Right Whale and climate change.
At issue: Whether the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development decision to approve the offshore exploration of fossil fuels must be halted and declared null and void for its impacts on climate change.
At issue: Whether climate activists protesting the expansion of a Paris airport acted in a “state of necessity” to warn about the effects of climate change.
At issue: Whether the amendment of Mexico’s Electric Industry Law violates the constitutional right to a healthy environment by giving preference to electricity generated by coal and fuel oil-fired power plants over renewables.
At issue: Whether the amendment of Mexico’s Electric Industry Law violates the constitutional right to a healthy environment by giving preference to electricity generated by coal and fuel oil-fired power plants over renewables.
At issue: Whether Eni’s Diesel+ advertising campaign constituted an unfair commercial practice by misrepresenting the “green” benefits of its Diesel+ fuel.
At issue: Whether “climate-friendly" claims made by Danish Crown in its campaign promoting pork amount to misleading consumers through greenwashing and violate Denmark’s Marketing Act.
At issue: Whether the Thames-Coromandel District Council’s decision not to approve the Mayor’s signature of the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration was legal.
At issue: Whether the Minister for Environment and Climate Change Canada's decision to approve a liquid natural gas project should be set aside based on a flawed environmental impact assessment