In this post, Dayna Rachkowski, a PhD student in the Institute of Resources, Environment, and Sustainability (IRES) at the University of British Columbia, shares what she took away from the third and final day of our 2025 Annual Conference on Environment and Law, combining personal reflections with key moments from the discussions. 

---

 

On the third and final day of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice’s 49th annual conference on Environment and the Law, participants wrapped up a conference which took the time to explore the interconnectedness between law and the environment. Speakers presented us with groundbreaking climate cases such as Mathur v. Ontario, ran us through an interactive RELAW workshop activity, and engaged us with informative debate panels, which dove into the complicated ethics and fine balance between prioritizing the economy and the planetary needs we must respect to live healthily for generations to come. This week shone a light on the law and its role to play in mitigating and adapting to our current climate crisis — by weaving itself with existing Indigenous laws and practices, championing our right to live in a healthy environment, and reining in companies that consistently underprioritize the natural resources and landscapes around us. 

 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice was on my heart during our conversations – and Dr. Micaela Martinez explicitly depicted the concept to us on day three, by using an analogy of a tilted tree. We hand out the same length ladders to help everyone pick fruit from the uneven branches of a tree when we want to be fair. We hand out ladders to those who need them to pick fruit if we want to be equitable, and then maybe – just maybe, we look at this tilted tree itself (the system), and question what we can do to stand it back upright. Thematically, for this conference, the law is a perfect example of a titled tree we can change to uplift environmental justice practices. 

 

Standing The Forest Back Up

Dr. Martinez addressed environmental justice solutions by describing the need to focus on the four pillars of justice (distributive, procedural, recognitional, restorative). This prevents environmental justice from becoming hollow. This means moving away from practices that perpetuate continual injustices (i.e., carbon credits), and looking in and around our own communities to understand how we can tailor justice to meet real people where they are. 

In her panel speaking time, Dr. Suzanne Simard posed the question, “what if we could stand our forests back up?” She was referring to rapid deforestation that occurs due to logging and urban development. However, this to me represented the connection between enhancing our laws in the context of environmental health and the potential to help forests, while straightening out the tilted tree (system) at the same time. Dr. Simard went on to further acknowledge the need to incorporate what we have learned from science, Indigenous Knowledge Keepers, and the trees themselves to protect our forests. 

She went on to explain how we now know it is no longer as economically or environmentally valuable to continue logging at rapid rates. Specifically, our old growth trees’ carbon capture holds greater environmental and economic benefit when left standing than sitting in a timber yard. Translating this kind of knowledge into our laws can take many forms. Protecting old growth forests from logging remains paramount. Additionally, advancing rights to nature/the right to a healthy environment beyond just the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is also important. Recognizing the pluralism between existing Indigenous governance and legal systems and Canadian law when making conservation decisions will further strengthen environmental law. 

Dr. Chris Russill spoke about how companies have previously been able to deceptively frame their values to make it seem as though they prioritize the environment. This concept, known as ‘greenwashing’, has evolved from “our product gives money back to the trees!” statements, to aspirational corporate social responsibilities. Consumers would see statements like “we intend to rebuild a forest by 2030”, or that a company’s values align with “tree-friendly practices” (what are those you ask? they need not tell us). Dr. Russill went on to speak to the harm this causes–by creating almost a polarity or ‘fear’ for companies to speak out about their real and undying love of trees. How can a company do a good thing, if nobody is around to hear about it? This was an example in which we can see the law react in a way to protect our environment, with the passing of the Competition Act. This assists in blocking these aspirational claims with no evidence, preventing companies from riding on the premise of future sustainability, and instead putting roots down in real sustainable practices.

To end our day, we then turned our attention to the final panel, which had participants asking, ‘where do we go from here?’. As the Ombudsperson responsible for ensuring public bodies are providing equitable treatment to all people, Jay Chalke reviewed alternatives to administrative justice. In times of a changing climate and increased natural disasters, Chalke focuses on reviewing government programs, to ensure systems are representing the needs of people in a changing environment, aligning the programs’ intended effects with the communities’ perceived outcomes. By talking to those receiving aid in climate disasters such as wildfires or urban heat domes, as well as the scientists predicting our future climate events, we can be better equipped to help all peoples living in our country, and ensure the availability of equitable and accessible care during the most desperate times. 

Catherine Choquette also called out the rigidity in our legal system, and how advancing towards normative governance systems might be the best way to deal with uncertainty in a changing climate. Currently, our top-down model (or consultation approaches) often makes it difficult to find humility and fluidity in the time of uncertainty. Choquette outlined the possibility (and need) to move toward normative decision-making methodologies, in which all stakeholders and rightsholders are included in dialogue facilitation to co-construct solutions, regardless of previous decision making power. This weaves in the theme of acknowledging the pluralism between Indigenous and western laws, the need for environmental justice, and even the consideration of new stakeholders, such as the environment itself. 

Finally, Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson brought us back full circle to our trees, land, and peoples. Her discussions centered on the legal pluralism, advancements, and rights of the Haida Gwaii people. Passings of UNDRIP and Bill C-226, and the recognition of the TRC are all continued efforts to braid Indigenous laws, land views, and knowledge into the forefront of conservation. This braiding of knowledge fulfills Canada’s commitments to reconciliation and is a step forward in recognizing Indigenous sovereignty. It also allows us to reflect on where most of our key environmental concepts originated from – which is from the original stewards of these lands. Terri-Lynn walked us through Haida teachings and principles for engaging with the land: respect, interconnectedness, precautionary principles, giving and receiving, all in efforts to live more harmoniously with our land and people. 

 

How Do You See The Tree? 

Coming away from this final day, if you and I were to imagine a single tree – whether alive in the forests, or freshly cut in a timber yard – it is clear our values, jobs and lived experiences shape the way we view the tree, and how we might stand it back up. Maybe you see the tree as an economic bottom line, a medicine maker, kin, a client to defend, shade in an urban area against the summer heat, a victim of wildfire. While the pluralism of views and voices can seem overwhelming, using these perspectives in how we interpret the law and amend our existing systems is the key to finding a new equitable way forward. 

 

Watering Our Roots, Together

In a time of increasing polarization, it can be easy to go inward or to only engage with those who view the tree in the same way as you. It may feel easier to communicate our stories, science, and laws with those who already share a similar opinion; however, in doing this, we risk missing the chance to give others a role to play. Williams-Davidson shared Chief Skidegate’s speech with us, reminding all that our roots are always stronger when we water them together. So, the next time you are writing a paper, or working on a case, it might be worthwhile to step outside your usual circle of voices and ask yourself new questions. Who is this equitable for? Whose voices are heard in this thinking, and who can I include to make this stronger? 

While pondering this, you may start feeling stuck, sitting at your desk made of oak, or cherry, maybe even teak. Let this serve as a gentle reminder to go see a living tree in its awe-filled form, outside in nature, where John Borrows said, “the laws may be regarded as literally being written on the earth.” If we wish to represent our environment, and the people who live in it, to the best of our ability, sometimes the simplest way to find clarity is to go outside and see the tree for ourselves. 

---

 

Student Column: Perspectives on the Environment and the Law From October 28 to 30, 2025, four law students took part in CIAJ’s Annual Conference, “Environment and the Law: Protect or Develop—Is There a Choice?” How can environmental protection be reconciled with economic development? Through panels, debates, and workshops led by legal experts, they explored this tension and shared their reflections on today’s key issues in environmental law. Here are their stories. Explore the full blog series: Blog #1 | First Exchanges at the Heart of Environmental Law Blog #2 | Protect or Develop? What the Debates Reveal Blog #3 | Environmental Justice, Trees, and the Law Blog #4 | Three Days to Rethink Environmental Law

 

About the author