Article content continued

In fact, in their ruling the justices spend page after page not talking about the constitution, which this case was about, but rather the need for there to be action on climate change.

The Ontario government position didn’t dispute that idea. They simply said Ontario had one of the best records, emissions 22% below 2005 levels, without a carbon tax and that the Paris targets could be met without a tax.

Not that the court agrees that the tax is a tax.

It is a price.

Yes, somehow the Ontario Court of Appeal looked at a fee imposed on a product by a government to fund government programs and deemed that it was not a tax. Let’s be clear, the carbon tax is definitely not a user fee like what is paid to go into a swimming pool or a skating rink, this is charged just like any other tax on gasoline or home heating fuel. But the court allowed the government to say it isn’t a tax to keep it constitutional.

At least in the eyes of the three judges in the majority.

This case will now be taken, like the Saskatchewan case, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“We promised to use every tool at our disposal to challenge the carbon tax and we will continue to fight to keep this promise,” Ontario Environment Minister Jeff Yurek said in a statement.

Ontario’s position was that there didn’t need to be a carbon tax, or price if you prefer, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While saying that policy decisions were best left to legislators to decide, the court still found the law was valid based in part by experts claiming a price on carbon was the best method to fight climate change.