Four contributors retiring after 2050 fought the motion to strike at a two-day Toronto hearing
Canada’s largest pension fund manager argued it cannot owe a fiduciary duty to Canada Pension Plan contributors and beneficiaries, a position heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s Commercial List in Toronto on November 12 and 13.
A press release issued by Ecojustice on November 12 ties the argument to CPP Investments’ motion to strike a climate lawsuit brought by four young contributors.
Canada’s National Observer reported on November 9 that the board’s position rests partly on plan structure.
Contributors pay into the plan and the board invests money transferred from CPP accounts, while governments set the rules for benefits and contributions.
Because the board exercises no discretion over what the applicants receive in retirement, its lawyers argued it cannot owe them a fiduciary duty in respect of those benefits.
In the release, Ecojustice lawyer and finance lead Karine Peloffy said CPP Investments exists to keep the Canada Pension Plan viable for future generations.
Peloffy said the fund now argues “it owes no duties whatsoever to young contributors” instead of answering the allegation that it failed to manage climate-related financial risks.
Simon Archer of Goldblatt Partners LLP said the organisation has repeatedly affirmed its legal responsibility to act in the best interests of contributors and beneficiaries.
“Now, CPP Investments is trying to sweep that responsibility under the rug,” Archer said.
Applicants Aliya Hirji, Chloe Tse, Rav Singh, and Travis Olson allege CPP Investments is failing in its fiduciary duty of impartiality, the obligation to act fairly between contributors and beneficiaries across generations, Ecojustice said.
All four expect to rely on their CPP benefits after 2050.
Their case alleges the organisation’s climate-risk modelling significantly underestimates the financial consequences of climate change, and that continued investment in fossil fuel expansion exposes the fund to undue risk of loss over coming decades.
BPM reported in October 2025 on the filing of the original climate risk lawsuit, and in May 2025 on the organisation’s decision to drop its 2050 net-zero pledge.
Advocacy groups have separately challenged the climate assumptions used in CPP actuarial valuations.
The applicants also want the court to order CPP Investments to disclose how it approaches climate-related financial risks, National Observer reported.
The outlet reported that CPP Investments has publicly said it integrates climate considerations into investment decisions while pursuing long-term returns.
CPP Investments reported net assets of $866.2bn as of September 30, compared with $863.6bn at the end of the previous quarter. It manages the fund for more than 22 million contributors and beneficiaries.
Ecojustice said CPP Investments is dismissing the applicants’ concerns as nothing more than “the political agenda of a small group of Canadians.”
In the release, Hirji said there is “nothing radical about protecting Canadians’ pensions.”
Hirji said CPP Investments acknowledged the risks climate change poses to its investments before walking back its net-zero commitment.
CPP Investments moved to strike the application on July 10, according to a November 4 post on the Columbia Law School Climate Law Blog, which identified the proceeding as Hirji.
Ecojustice listed three filings: the factum of the moving party dated July 10, the factum of the applicants dated September 18, and the reply factum of the moving party dated October 9.
