This article addresses the jurisdiction of Canadian courts over transboundary pollution. It argues that a tort lawsuit brought by foreign victims of climate change against local greenhouse gas emitters could overcome jurisdictional obstacles, notably the local action rule, and proceed in Canada. The local action rule provides that Canadian courts have no jurisdiction to hear a claim involving foreign land, even when the claim lies solely in tort. It is thought to be a significant jurisdictional obstacle in transboundary environmental disputes involving foreign land. This assumption is misleading. A growing corpus of soft law instruments supports the notion of equal access to the courts of the state of origin for all victims of transboundary pollution. The courts of Canadian provinces have jurisdiction over pollution originating in the province, and the case law is more divided than generally assumed over the effect of the local action rule in tort litigation. The conclusions of this article have important implications for transboundary environmental disputes in Canada and other top greenhouse gas-producing countries. They also highlight a modest but potentially meaningful role for private international law in our global response to climate change.

本文阐述了加拿大法院对跨界污染的管辖权。它辩称，气候变化的外国受害者针对当地温室气体排放者提起的侵权诉讼可以克服管辖权的障碍，特别是当地的行动规则，并在加拿大进行。地方诉讼规则规定，即使诉讼完全是侵权行为，加拿大法院也没有管辖权来审理涉及外国土地的诉讼。在涉及外国土地的跨界环境纠纷中，这被认为是重大的司法障碍。该假设具有误导性。越来越多的软法律文书支持所有跨界污染受害者平等诉诸原籍国法院的观念。加拿大各省的法院对源自该省的污染具有管辖权，判例法在本地诉讼规则在侵权诉讼中的作用比一般假定的要分散得多。本文的结论对加拿大和其他主要温室气体生产国的跨界环境纠纷具有重要意义。它们还突显了国际私法在我们对气候变化的全球反应中的适度但可能有意义的作用。