That's a very good question.
I think that part of any bill of rights or charter kind of document is that it contains principles that when you stretch them to their limit begin to collide with each other or overlap. So the Charter of Rights has freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I could be exercising my freedom of speech by criticizing religion. I could be exercising freedom of speech by criticizing equality. So you could ask the same question, right? There are principles that in an absolute way are separate, but when you stretch them to their limit, you can in fact find situations where they conflict.
What this is really getting at is something like this: let's say we were to bring in a carbon regulation in Canada. The idea would be that the burden is the cost, basically, of bringing in carbon regulation, and it should be shared with all regions and people across the country. It shouldn't be that one region or one particular sector has to bear the disproportionate share of the problem.
If I were arguing the case, I would argue that this doesn't apply to those who are actually engaged in polluting, that the burden applies to the public burden of bringing in legislation, but where a particular company or individual has been engaged in polluting behaviour, that the polluter pays trumps environmental justice.