Turp v. Canada. País/Territorio Canadá Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Jul 17, 2012 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Federal Court Sede de la corte Ottawa Juez Noël, S. Número de referencia 2012 FC 893 Idioma Inglés Materia Aire y atmósfera, Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Implementación nacional/transposición Cambio climático Acuerdo internacional-implementación Resumen Application by Turp for judicial review of the federal government's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol was adopted in 1997 after two years of negotiations. It was intended to be part of a coordinated international effort to address the challenges of climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere within a desirable timeframe. During the commitment period between 2008 and 2012, industrialized countries were supposed to reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases by at least five per cent below 1990 levels. The Canadian government ratified the Protocol in 2002. In 2006, the Conservative Party took power as a minority government. In 2007, it published a plan that established a new target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that was 34 per cent higher than the target established by the Protocol. Nonetheless, opposition parties joined together to pass a private member's bill, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA). In subsequent applications for judicial review, it was determined that the KPIA created a comprehensive system of public and Parliamentary accountability as a substitute for judicial review. In 2011, an Order-in-Council authorized the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take the necessary steps for Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. The withdrawal was effective December 2012. The KPIA was subsequently repealed. The applicant sought judicial review on the basis that the withdrawal from the Protocol was illegal and violated both the KPIA and the principle of the rule of law. The applicant submitted that the failure to consult the House of Commons and the provinces before withdrawing was contrary to principles of democracy and the separation of powers. The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of Canadas decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The withdrawal from the Protocol did not violate the KPIA and, by extension, the rule of law. The prior judicial review decisions involving the KPIA determined that it excluded judicial review over issues of substantive Kyoto compliance and the reasonableness of the government's response to Canada's Kyoto commitments. The KPIA contained no provision, condition or restriction that limited the royal prerogative of the government to withdraw from the Protocol. The withdrawal mechanism was clearly provided for under the Protocol and the government was in compliance with it. The withdrawal from the Protocol did not violate the principle of separation of powers, as the executive branch maintained the prerogative to withdraw from the Protocol. Application of the prerogative was not justiciable. No democratic principles were violated. The House of Commons motion in favour of ratification was non-binding and expressly acknowledged that the power to withdraw from the treaty still lay with the executive branch. The Court relied on a previous Federal Court decision that the KPIA does not impose an enforceable duty upon the government to comply with Canadas commitments under the Protocol. Texto completo COU-159630.pdf