Photo of John Polyzogopoulos

John Polyzogopoulos

Subscribe to John Polyzogopoulos's Posts

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, partnership, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles complex estates and matrimonial litigation involving disputes over property and businesses, as well as professional discipline and professional negligence matters for various types of professionals. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and also advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.

Follow:Read more about John PolyzogopoulosJohn's Linkedin ProfileJohn's Twitter Profile
Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Short Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions | Ontario Review Board

Good evening.

The key decision of the week was Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, in which the Court found the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) to be constitutional. The Act puts a price on carbon pollution in order to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and to encourage innovation and the use of clean technologies. It places a fuel charge on certain producers, distributors, and importers who produce carbon-based fuels. It also establishes emissions limits for large industrial emitters of GHGs. The Act serves as a backstop and applies in provinces and territories that have not adopted sufficiently stringent carbon pricing mechanisms. The Province of Ontario asked the Court of Appeal to determine whether the Act is unconstitutional. It argued that Parliament does not have the power under the Constitution to enact the Act and that the charges the Act imposes are unconstitutional taxes. The Court determined that the main thrust of the Act was to establish minimal national standards to reduce GHG emissions. Further, the Court held that the Act properly falls within Parliament’s power to legislate on matters of national concern for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. The Act leaves ample opportunity for provinces to pass legislation on other aspects of GHG regulation, and the charges it imposes are not unconstitutional regulatory charges.Continue Reading BLANEY’S APPEALS: ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 24 – 28, 2019)