On 20 August 2025, Investors for Paris Compliance (I4PC) filed a complaint with the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) alleging that Cenovus Energy and Enbridge have misled investors through their net-zero disclosures.

This complaint reflects more than a challenge to two companies’ climate claims. It signifies the deeper structural issue of a fragmented and incomplete climate disclosure architecture in Canada, underscoring the need for a “whole-economy” approach to consistent and mandatory climate-related disclosures.

Climate-related disclosures increasingly shape investment decisions and market valuations, as investors rely on this information to assess risk and allocate capital. When such claims lack substance, they distort investor trust and market integrity. This has severe consequences for Canada’s economic growth and global competitiveness.

The complaint

The I4PC complaint asserts that Cenovus and Enbridge’s disclosures give a reasonable investor the impression that both companies are on credible pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century. I4PC contends this impression is false and misleading because neither company has substantiated its claims with concrete operational plans, science-based targets, or evidence of alignment with the Paris Agreement.

The complaint states that I4PC chose to take the case to the securities regulators of the Competition Bureau, as “investors have a strong interest in the credible and timely enforcement of securities law”, and to ensure that securities regulators are aware that the Bill C-59 amendments do not absolve securities regulators of their obligations to investors when it comes to greenwashing. Moreover, Michael Sambasivam, senior analyst with I4PC, has confirmed that Cenovus and Enbridge were selected as they represent different sections of the energy sector (production and transport) and “offered some of [the] most consistently flagrant violations of Canadian security principles”.

The complaint asks the ASC to investigate all current and past claimant-related disclosures of Cenovus, Enbridge, and other oil and gas companies to assess their “accuracy and adequacy”. It further asks the ASC to ensure that overly promotional disclosures in the context of net-zero across the oil and gas sector are rectified, and to issue, with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), an interpretive guidance clarifying the use of net-zero lexis and assertions in disclosures.

Both Cenovus and Enbridge made commitments to accomplish net-zero emissions in their operations by 2050. The measurement of operational emissions includes Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which both companies report on. The complaint highlights Cenovus’s lack of any Scope 3 emissions disclosures and Enbridge’s incomplete reporting of Scope 3 emissions. However, it could be argued that the respondents only committed to reducing operational emissions rather than their full value chain emissions. Therefore, the lack of Scope 3 disclosures does not constitute incomplete disclosures in the context of those specific climate commitments.

Enbridge has responded in an emailed statement to The Canadian Press, maintaining “we stand behind the information we share in our reports and communications”, and that they intend to uphold their commitment to both accuracy and transparency and their operation net zero by 2050 targets. As of the date of publication, Cenovus has not commented on the accusations.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that these commitments are misleading when both companies have expanded their fossil fuel production, have not shifted capital away from fossil fuels and towards their net-zero commitments, and report using “incomplete and misleading rhetoric” that is overly promotional. The complaint also alleges that Cenovus is misleading investors by not affirming or retracting its net-zero targets following its Bill C-59-attributed climate disclosure withdrawal.

Bill C-59’s Competition Act amendments to tackle greenwashing in marketing and promotional materials have moved Canada forward in protecting the consumer against misleading statements related to the sustainability claims of business activities and products. However, some businesses and organizations argue that it has raised litigation risk—resulting in a withdrawal of voluntary climate-related disclosures—and that it interferes with their section 2(b) right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Expanding fossil fuel production – I4PC argues that both companies detail in reports and opinion pieces that the move to net zero will need to include fossil fuel energy in the transition. They also state that the omission of Scope 3 emissions from their net-zero targets allows the companies to continue expanding into fossil fuel projects, which is inconsistent with their net-zero commitments. This misleads investors as to their metrics on achieving net-zero and on their transition risk.

Capital expenditures are still fossil fuel-focused – The complaint asserts that Cenovus has only committed to the allocation of 5% of its capital expenditure budget towards the energy transition from 2023 to 2027. However, it must be noted that the 5% figure is based on an estimation of Cenovus’ capital expenditure for the years 2026 and 2027, as those years’ budgets have not yet been publicly released. I4PC seem to have estimated $4 billion a year expenditure over 5 years to reach the 5% of capital expenditure assertion.

The complaint further argues that Cenovus has failed to detail where the $1 billion committed to decarbonization has been spent and how this has impacted its net-zero transition.

On the other hand, Enbridge, the complaint maintains, has failed to set any capital expenditure targets for its net-zero transition, and it spent only 4% of its budget on renewable energy production between 2020 and 2024.

The complaint also details that both companies’ capital expenditures have been assessed as not being in line with their decarbonization targets due to a lack of commitment to reduce spending on “carbon intensive assets and products” and a lack of alignment of future capital expenditures with their net-zero targets.

Overly promotional disclosures – The complaint contends that both Cenovus and Enbridge refer to net zero without specificity in their disclosures. Cenovus has repeatedly referred to net zero in its investor communications and through Pathways Alliance, giving the perception that it is net-zero aligned.

Enbridge has failed to quantify its net-zero targets, also referring to the goals in general terms and, thus, presenting a net-zero-aligned company without tangible transition plans or detailed Scope 3 emissions measurements.

Cenovus’s net-zero commitment – Since Cenovus removed its disclosures in response to Bill C-59, they have failed to detail for investors whether it still maintains its net-zero commitments. The complaint argues this creates uncertainty for affiliated companies and investors and that the lack of affirmation or retraction amounts to incomplete disclosures under the Alberta Securities Act, RSA 2000, c S-4 (Securities Act).

The law

Canada’s regulatory framework for climate-related disclosure remains fragmented. The CSA acts as an umbrella organization of provincial and territorial securities regulators to harmonize regulation; however, the ASC, along with its other provincial and territorial counterparts, regulate disclosures under provincial securities law.

The CSA has proposed National Instrument (NI) 51-107 – Disclosure of Climate-related Matters, which would mandate climate-related reporting requirements and, therefore, standardize climate-related reporting across Canada. However, its implementation has been paused, leaving issuers and investors without a uniform national standard. Without standardized reporting requirements, inconsistencies arise in what climate-related information is considered material, and subsequently, whether its omission or inaccurate reporting falls within the remit of provincial securities regulation. 

Meanwhile, Bill C-59 — introduced earlier this year — amends the Competition Act to prohibit greenwashing by making false or misleading environmental claims. These provisions, though important, primarily target consumer advertising rather than investor disclosures.

Thus, the I4PC complaint was filed under section 92(4.1) of the Securities Act, using CSA staff notices (SN) to develop its case in the context of climate disclosures.

Section 92(4.1) of the Securities Act prohibits knowingly, or being wilfully blind to, making any untrue or misleading statements, or omitting material facts, where such statements or omissions would significantly affect the value or price of a security.

The complaint argues that:

• that environmental information is material if its inclusion or omission would impact the purchasing decisions of investors (SN 51-333);
• that climate-related disclosures are subject to the same requirements regarding misrepresentations detailed in the Securities Act and should be factual and specific (SN 51-385 and SN 51-365); and
• that climate-related misstatements or net-zero commitments without credible details relating to the scope and strategy of the transition to net zero can convey a false impression and amount to greenwashing (SN 51-364 and SN 51-365).

These fragmented regulations demonstrate the existence of a parallel system of partial oversight, where no single framework ensures consistent, verifiable, and comparable climate disclosures. The I4PC complaint arises directly from this regulatory void and seeks to affirm the securities regulators’ responsibility to protect investors from overly promotional disclosures and greenwashing.

The implications

For investors, the case highlights the impact that climate-related disclosures can have on making informed decision-making. A company’s failure to present truthful and transparent climate disclosures can impact the physical and transition risk evaluation of those companies and have financial ramifications for both the company and its stakeholders.

Investors increasingly evaluate companies based on the credibility of their transition strategies — from capital expenditure plans to board oversight of climate risk. Yet in the absence of consistent regulatory standards, disclosures can be highly variable, qualitative, or promotional. Companies may issue sweeping commitments that sound plausible but lack measurable pathways or methodological verification. This creates information asymmetry, leaving investors uncertain about whether net-zero claims represent genuine objectives or simply marketing rhetoric.

For issuers, there is both a legal and a reputational risk associated with false or misleading climate claims. Companies could potentially face enforcement under securities or competition law, whilst real or perceived greenwashing erodes trust with investors, regulators, and the public. Transparent and trustworthy disclosures can help to alleviate this risk; however, this case could demonstrate a potential drawback to that transparency.

Some investors view Enbridge as progressive on disclosures in comparison to other energy companies, and worry that this case will have a negative impact on a company’s willingness to voluntarily disclose climate-related information if Enbridge’s greater transparency results in the ASC finding against it, whilst Cenovus’s opacity protects it. An interesting observation in light of these concerns is that the I4PC complaint raises Enbridge’s incomplete disclosure of Scope 3 emissions five times, whereas it raises Cenovus’s complete lack of Scope 3 disclosures only once.

Beyond these immediate effects, the complaint has broader implications. It underscores the urgent need for a coherent, mandatory climate disclosure framework, such as that envisioned in the proposed NI 51-107.

NI 51-107, designed to align with international standards like the International Sustainability Standards Board, would require all public companies to disclose governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics related to climate risks and opportunities.

Mandatory, standardized disclosure would reduce ambiguity, discourage greenwashing, and give investors comparable information to evaluate corporate transition readiness. The I4PC complaint demonstrates what happens in its absence: accountability becomes reactive and complaint-driven, rather than proactive and standardized.

As Canada debates NI 51-107 and the scope of Bill C-59, this complaint becomes a case study in why partial measures and voluntary standards no longer suffice. We need to transform the current enforcement landscape from one of case-by-case accountability to systemic transparency.

The future

The I4PC complaint and the introduction of Bill C-59 mark a clear inflection point: a shift from green marketing to green accountability. It signals that investors will no longer accept high-level climate pledges without credible evidence of implementation.

The next steps will reveal how Canada’s regulators respond to this growing tension between ambition and accountability. Key developments to monitor include:

• whether the ASC accepts the complaint and initiates a formal investigation;
• any renewed movement by the CSA to advance NI 51-107;
• potential Bill C-59 cases and how this will further influence climate-related disclosures; and
• whether companies begin revising their climate claims or providing greater transparency around transition planning.

Collectively, these developments will indicate whether Canada intends to promote credible climate disclosure or remain reliant on piecemeal enforcement.

The I4PC complaint is more than an isolated enforcement request. It exposes a structural weakness in Canada’s regulatory framework for climate disclosure — one that leaves both investors and companies navigating a landscape defined by uncertainty rather than clarity.

As climate commitments become central to financial valuation, Canada’s regulators face a clear choice: continue relying on voluntary guidance and after-the-fact complaints, or move decisively toward a consistent, enforceable disclosure regime that aligns ambition with accountability.