Four young contributors push back as Ontario court prepares to hear landmark climate risk dismissal hearing
Four young Canadians are set to push back against the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's (CPP Investments) bid to have their climate risk lawsuit thrown out before it can reach trial, as hearings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's Commercial List in Toronto begin on November 12 and 13, 2026.
The applicants - Aliya Hirji, Travis Olson, Ravneet Singh, and Chloe Tse - allege that Canada's largest pension fund manager is failing to adequately identify and manage climate-related financial risks, exposing their future retirement savings to undue harm. Their lawsuit was initially filed in October 2025, as reported by Wealth Professional at the time.
At the core of CPP Investments' motion to strike is the assertion that it owes no fiduciary duty to contributors and beneficiaries. The fund's legal team, represented by Torys LLP. argues in its October 2026 reply factum filed with the Ontario Superior Court that contributors hold no vested right to CPP benefits, and that CPP Investments exercises no discretionary authority over individual contributors' interests.
The factum states that the applicants' alleged interest in CPP retirement benefits "cannot ground a fiduciary relationship because CPPIB exercises no discretion or power over the Applicants' CPP benefits."
The applicants, represented by Ecojustice Canada and Goldblatt Partners LLP, dispute that characterisation entirely.
A novel legal question on intergenerational fairness
The lawsuit - the first of its kind in Canada - rests on the fiduciary duty of impartiality: the obligation to act fairly between contributors and beneficiaries across generations.
All four applicants expect to draw on their CPP benefits after 2050, a time frame they argue will expose the fund to greater climate-related financial risks than its current modelling accounts for.
According to Ecojustice, CPP Investments has acknowledged that climate change is a significant financial risk to its portfolio but quietly abandoned its 2022 net-zero by 2050 commitment in the spring of 2025.
The applicants further allege that CPP Investments' use of the MSCI Climate Value-at-Risk model - which it disclosed in its 2025 and 2026 annual reports - fails to capture the systemic financial risks associated with higher degrees of warming or account for cascading macroeconomic impacts.
Karine Peloffy, Ecojustice lawyer and Finance Lead, said: "CPP Investments was created to ensure the Canada Pension Plan would be viable for future generations. Yet rather than answer for its alleged failure to prudently manage climate-related financial risks, it is taking the extraordinary and insupportable position that it owes no duties whatsoever to young contributors. This position is untenable, and the motion to strike should be dismissed."
Simon Archer of Goldblatt Partners LLP added: "CPP Investments has repeatedly affirmed its legal responsibility to act in the best interests of contributors and beneficiaries - a duty that lies at the very heart of its fiduciary responsibilities. Now, CPP Investments is trying to sweep that responsibility under the rug. All pension fund managers are accountable to the people whose retirement savings they manage - and CPP Investments is no different."
CPP Investments pushes back on scope and justiciability
In its reply factum, CPP Investments argues that the applicants have mischaracterised the relief they are seeking.
The fund's legal team contends that granting the applicants' requested court declarations would, in practice, require CPP Investments to eliminate fossil fuel investments from its portfolio - effectively asking the court to act as both legislator and investment decision-maker. The factum argues this falls squarely outside the court's jurisdiction.
CPP Investments also raises justiciability. It points out that its statutory scheme, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, S.C. 1997, c. 40, expressly empowers federal and provincial finance ministers - not courts - to review the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan every three years, and to make recommendations about contribution rates and benefits. The fund's lawyers argue that the applicants' concerns about the CPP's long-term financial health are matters properly within that legislative framework, not before a civil court.
Wealth Professional has previously covered how a sharp divergence is emerging among Canada's largest pension managers on climate strategy, creating material implications for long-term portfolio risk and fiduciary responsibility.
What the applicants are asking the court to decide
The applicants are not seeking financial damages. Rather, they are asking the Ontario Superior Court to allow the case to proceed to a full hearing on its merits - where, they argue, questions of fiduciary responsibility, intergenerational fairness, and the adequacy of CPP Investments' climate risk management can be properly examined.
Applicant Travis Olson said: "Taking my pension fund investment manager to court wasn't something I ever expected to do - but I truly believe protecting our retirement requires managing climate risks. Don't those of us who won't retire until after 2050 deserve to know our savings are being managed fairly, too?"
As the question of pension manager accountability grows in both legal and investment planning circles, Wealth Professional's 2026 Best Wealth Management Firms to Work For report shows how Canada's leading wealth firms are navigating competing pressures - from client demands to regulatory expectations - across a rapidly shifting landscape.
This case may hold consequences well beyond one fund. If the applicants succeed in having the motion to strike dismissed, it would mark the first time a Canadian court has agreed to examine whether a pension fund investment manager's approach to climate risk management can be subject to legal scrutiny on fiduciary grounds - a precedent-setting development for financial advisors, wealth managers, and planners who counsel clients on retirement planning and the long-term stability of defined-benefit programmes.
