Oil terminal blocked in eastern Montreal: activists plead “necessity”

Environmental activists who blocked an oil terminal in eastern Montreal admit to having committed the act which put them on trial this Monday, but they will ask to be acquitted, under the pretext that they acted “out of necessity” .

“It was legit. It’s an industry that is poisoning us and is directly linked to climate change,” said Michèle Lavoie, of the Antigone Collective, during a press briefing this morning at the Montreal municipal court.

The woman was speaking just before the opening of the trial of a whole group of individuals in connection with an environmental action that occurred in 2022 at the Valero oil terminal.

In the early morning, a group climbed the structure for several hours to demand the closure of a pipeline that carried tar sand from Alberta to the port of Montreal.

“It’s time to shake things up, the governments aren’t listening,” said a protester from the top of the terminal.

Known accused

Among the accused are Jacob Pirro and Olivier Huard, two activists who made headlines for blocking the Jacques-Cartier Bridge last month. Here again to raise awareness of the climate emergency and demand the end of fossil fuels.

Hundreds of thousands of people were stuck in massive traffic jams, and hundreds had to cancel their medical appointments that day.

Again, it is conceivable that they will plead the “necessity” defense.

Not very useful necessity

In this type of defense, which we occasionally see in court, the accused claims to have acted in an emergency situation, having no choice in committing an offense. In the present case, we can guess that the accused will invoke the climate emergency, such as during the blocking of the Jacques-Cartier Bridge last month.

“Courts rarely uphold this defense [en environnement]», However, indicates a report from the Canadian Resource Law Institute.

In Sherbrooke, an activist is accused of obstructing the police during a demonstration aimed at “alerting the population to government inertia” regarding an aspect of the metallurgy industry.

However, even if experts had testified that certain substances persisted in the environment and that possible effects on humans were of concern, the defense of necessity did not hold water, a judge of the Court of Quebec ruled.

In another case, a Montrealer who stuck labels on food boxes to protest against GMOs was also found guilty of mischief after pleading the defense of necessity.

“This defense cannot be invoked to justify the deterioration of private property,” ruled a judge of the Montreal municipal court. For example, a person cannot destroy a private vehicle under the pretext that the vehicle has polluted the air.”

But despite everything, the activists on trial this Monday are convinced that this time they will be able to convince the courts of the merits of their position.