A group of Montreal-area residents is determined to halt the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) light-rail train project and they claim the venture should be more environmentally friendly.
They appeared before the Quebec Court of Appeal Friday in an effort to reverse a Quebec Superior Court decision last December that dismissed the group’s efforts to delay the REM construction.
“I’m concerned about the impact that this project will have on our emissions in Montreal, particularly due to urban sprawl,” said Matthew Chapman from Trainsparence.
READ MORE: Major closures on Hwy. 40 could create West Island congestion Nov. 3-4
The group argues consultations on the REM project were inadequate.
“The meaningful hearings on the environment are a fundamental constitutional right, which is attached to our fundamental constitutional right to a healthy environment,” the group’s lawyer Campbell Stuart tells Global News.
He also say that the Quebec government should not have allowed the project to go ahead, after the province’s environmental review agency slammed it.
Get daily National news
READ MORE: New report slams planned light electric rail system
“That institution clearly demonstrated that this project did not provide the details necessary to evaluate it,” said Chapman.
- How modern diplomacy is — and isn’t — like how it’s shown on ‘The Diplomat’
- ‘Let’s not panic’: Canada picks up the pieces after shocking loss to Latvia at world juniors
- Plane with ‘suspected landing gear issue’ moved after rough Halifax landing
- Norad paying ‘full attention’ to Chinese-Russian air co-operation
The Quebec Superior Court disagreed with the groups’ positions and rejected a motion hoping to block construction of the light-rail project.
READ MORE: Quebec Superior Court quashes legal challenge to REM electric train network
They are now waiting for the decision of their appeal and if it rules in their favour several things could happen.
The court could also order a suspension of the project until hearings are completed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal could rule against the group’s arguments that there is a fundamental right to a healthy environment and meaningful hearings on potential threats to a healthy environment.
“These are not issues we’re going to let go,” Stuart said. “Whatever happens.”
Comments