Opponents turn to appeal court to stop light-rail project
Montreal Climate Coalition, five citizens claim judge was biased against them
An environmental group is seeking to overturn a ruling by Quebec Superior Court denying its bid to halt the Réseau express métropolitain light-rail project.
In December, Judge Michel Yergeau rejected a court challenge to the $6.3-billion project by the Montreal Climate Coalition and five citizens, who argued the project should be suspended until proper public hearings were held and an environmental assessment conducted.
In a 48-page ruling, Yergeau said “the plaintiff ’s suit has no chance of success in its present form,” and dismissed it to avoid directing resources into “a legal action destined to fail.”
On Monday, the group filed legal arguments asking the Quebec Court of Appeal to review Yergeau’s decision, claiming the judge was biased against them and that citizens are entitled to meaningful hearings before the project goes ahead.
The group contends that consultations held in 2016 by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) were insufficient.
In a 296-page report released in January 2017, the BAPE refused to endorse the REM, saying the promoter, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, did not provide complete documentation and that “several essential elements of the project were not subject to public debate and unable to be analyzed.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that the provincial government had violated federal jurisdiction when it authorized the project, which they argued should have been assessed at the federal level.
The group claimed that citizens’ fundamental rights would be violated by the project’s environmental impacts, which they said would include contributing to climate change and increasing noise.
The citizens are also contesting Bill 137, a provincial law passed in September to fast-track construction of the REM, saying it bypasses environmental protection, and “citizens’ constitutional right to be consulted on major environmental issues,” Alison Hackney, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
“The citizens are asking the Court of Appeal to recognize the government’s obligation to treat its citizens in a fair, transparent and honourable manner — and to send the case back to the lower court to be heard fairly and without bias,” she said.