TORONTO – After months of deliberation, Canada’s Federal Court released a decision late yesterday regarding the Government of Canada’s alleged violation of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA), a federal law that required Canada to take specific action to meet binding international commitments to fight climate change.

The lawsuit was launched on behalf of Friends of the Earth Canada in June by pro bono lawyers from Paliare Roland Barristers and Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund). It sought a declaration from the court that the government had failed to meet the legal requirements of the KPIA by missing critical deadlines and failing to uphold its legal duty to publish regulations. The Court ruled that the legislation itself is not justiciable – meaning it is not an issue the Courts can resolve.

“It is distressing that such crucial legislation would be beyond the realm of the courts,” said Ecojustice lawyer Hugh Wilkins. “If we can’t turn to the courts to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld, I fear our government will continue to drift towards unaccountability on climate change and other issues Canadians care deeply about.”

The Federal Court’s decision, if left unchallenged, allows Canada’s woeful inaction responding to the climate change crisis to continue.

“This decision is shocking and a stake in the heart of democracy since it appears we cannot enforce Canadian domestic law,” said Friends of the Earth Canada Chief Executive Officer Beatrice Olivastri. “Friends of the Earth had counted on the KPIA law to compel this government to act honourably and take appropriate climate protection measures.”

“The Court has sent a message that the government can pick and choose which laws to obey,” said eminent Canadian lawyer Chris Paliare. “We will undoubtedly be considering further legal action to ensure that the Government is held accountable.”

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement that has been ratified by 180 countries to date and sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of the 38 industrialized nations with binding international targets, Canada is the only country that has indicated that it does not intend to meet its international obligations.

18 September 2008: In proceedings taken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Federal Court has declared that GM Holden Ltd made false and misleading claims in its "Grrrrrreen" campaign which promoted the environmentally friendly nature of its Saab range of vehciles.

Between 27 July and 1 September 2007, GM Holden, trading as Saab Australia, published newspaper and magazine advertisements across Australia promoting the Saab range of motor vehicles. The advertisements, under the headline statement "Grrrrrreen", contained the words and phrases, "Grrrrrreen", "Every Saab is green. With carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range" and "Shift to Neutral".

In the advertisements GM Holden represented that it had taken measures so that the carbon dioxide emissions from any Saab motor vehicle would be neutral over the life of that motor vehicle.

In the same advertisements GM Holden represented that in the first year following the purchase of a Saab motor vehicle, GM Holden would plant, on behalf of the purchaser, 17 native trees which would offset the carbon dioxide emissions for the life of that motor vehicle.

In fact, the carbon dioxide emissions from any Saab motor vehicle would not be neutral over the life of that motor vehicle, and the planting of 17 native trees would only provide a carbon dioxide emission offset for a single year's operation of the motor vehicle.

By consent, the Federal Court declared today that GM Holden contravened sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by engaging in misleading conduct. The court also ordered GM Holden to pay the ACCC's costs.

The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from GM Holden. GM Holden has undertaken to refrain from republishing the advertisements; retrain all its Saab marketing staff in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct int he context of 'green' marketing claims to make them aware of their responsibilities under the Act; and have the training reviewed by an independent third party and have the reviewer provide a report to the ACCC about the training.

The original complaint was made by the NSW Greens to the ACCC. The ACJP provided support for this complaint.