The lower court had thrown out the case on procedural grounds, saying the issue involved a high‑level policy decision that is not suitable for judicial review.

SES, together with three private individuals and the group Citizens for Public Justice, filed for judicial review, arguing that extending coal power breaches the federal mandate that requires coal to be phased out by 2030.

The appeal focuses on whether the lower court had jurisdiction, with the appellants insisting the matter is justiciable. Lawyer Glenn Wright, representing the appellants, said the coal decision puts the province on a path that defies federal law and breaches provincial law.

The provincial government, one of the respondents, argues it has the authority to enact energy‑related laws and that a judicial review would intrude on its policymaking freedoms. It also seeks to recover court costs on behalf of taxpayers.

A three‑judge panel of the Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment, meaning the written decision will be released at a later date.

The case illustrates how judicial review can be used to contest government policy and tests the balance between provincial power over energy and federal climate commitments.