Sask. court tosses coal injunction, rules environmental policy belongs to elected governments — not judges
“The question is not whether climate change is real,” Justice R.S. Smith wrote in the decision, emphasizing that balancing environmental concerns with electricity reliability, affordability, and energy security involves competing interests that must be weighed by elected governments, not judges.
A Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by environmental advocacy groups and private citizens seeking to block the province’s plan to extend the life of coal-fired power plants, ruling that courts are not the proper forum for deciding environmental or energy policy.
In a January 12 decision, Justice R.S. Smith struck the entire application filed by Citizens for Public Justice, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, and several individual applicants, Kiké Dueck, a minor represented by litigation guardian Kris Dueck, along with Sherry Olson and Matthew Wiens, who asked the court to overturn the Saskatchewan government’s coal decision.
The application targeted a June 18, 2025, letter from Crown Investments Minister Jeremy Harrison to SaskPower employees announcing the government’s decision to life-extend two coal-powered generating stations.
The province says the move is necessary to maintain reliable and affordable electricity while Saskatchewan transitions toward nuclear baseload power through small modular reactors.
The applicants argued the decision increased greenhouse gas emissions and should be quashed through judicial review, claiming it was unreasonable, unlawful, and contrary to climate obligations.
Justice Smith rejected those arguments outright.
“The question is not whether climate change is real,” Smith wrote. “The question is how best to address it,” emphasizing that balancing environmental concerns with electricity reliability, affordability, and energy security involves competing interests that must be weighed by elected governments, not judges.
The court found the minister’s letter amounted to a core policy decision, not an administrative act made under delegated statutory authority. As such, it was not subject to judicial review under Canada’s administrative law framework. Smith also noted the applicants failed to cite any statute, treaty, or legal instrument that would legally underpin the relief they were seeking.
Citing Supreme Court of Canada precedent, Smith warned against courts “second-guessing” executive decisions grounded in broad social, economic, and political considerations, saying such intervention would undermine the separation of powers and exceed the courts’ institutional role.
“The Courts should not be dictating to the Government of Saskatchewan what its overarching environmental policy should be,” he concluded, adding that climate policy disputes are ultimately resolved through democratic accountability, not court orders.
While the province sought costs, the court declined to impose them, citing the public-interest nature of the climate debate.
The ruling clears the legal roadblock for Saskatchewan’s plan to maintain coal generation as a reliability backstop while pursuing nuclear energy despite continued opposition from organized environmental activist groups.
Sheila Gunn Reid
Chief Reporter
Sheila Gunn Reid is the Alberta Bureau Chief for Rebel News and host of the weekly The Gunn Show with Sheila Gunn Reid. She's a mother of three, conservative activist, and the author of best-selling books including Stop Notley.
COMMENTS
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2026-01-16 19:53:27 -0500I’m also glad there are some smart judges. And as we know from Freinds of Science and Climate Depot, the climate is always changing. We have a tiny part in it but the fun runs the climate throughout the solar system.
-
Fran g commented 2026-01-16 14:10:58 -0500Wonderful to hear there are smart down to earth judges out there. They should stick with coal and oil, not nuclear power! Nuclear power scares me for many reasons, 3 mile island, chernobyl, nakasake etc. -
Charles Audette commented 2026-01-16 10:05:42 -0500Smith warned against courts “second-guessing” executive decisions grounded in broad social, economic, and political considerations, saying such intervention would undermine the separation of powers and exceed the courts’ institutional role.
Wow Smith! That is a most encouraging statement. It seems so many decisions are based on social opinion versus clear electoral orders. I am pleased a judge recognizes the appropriate place of both electoral and public opinion. I have been loosing heart in both the Sask Party and the legal system. This article is an all around an encouraging read. -
Charles Audette commented 2026-01-16 09:55:51 -0500I could not agree more. Here is the question, do the MLA’s of Saskatchewan have the rational, reasonable sense to know that what God placed in the ground is for our good and that subsequently good stewardship is what is required. Stewardship being for the good wealth and health of the people they represent. Saskatchewan has spent enormous amounts of money to develop scrubbers and such to mitigate carbon. We are world class in that particular area of expertise. Keep going with the coal and the power generated thereby.
-
Ruth Bard commented 2026-01-15 21:41:12 -0500Good to know there’s a judge here and there with his head on straight. I was beginning to wonder.
