A municipal court judge ruled that climate crisis concerns do not justify blocking an oil terminal, rejecting the necessity defense of environmental activists who protested at the Valero oil terminal in Montreal. The protest, which involved chaining to equipment and climbing structures, aimed to halt oil transport linked to climate change. Defendants, including Jacob Pirro and Olivier Huard, faced charges of mischief and obstruction. Despite expert testimony on climate impacts, the judge emphasized the defendants’ conscious choice to protest.
The Court’s Ruling on Environmental Activism
The reality of the climate crisis does not provide a valid excuse for blocking an oil terminal, as determined by a municipal court judge. Judge Randall Richmond made this clear on Friday during proceedings at the Montreal Municipal Court, rejecting the “necessity” defense put forth by environmental activists. “The only possible conclusion is that they are guilty,” he stated, following the prosecution’s request for the defendants to have a criminal record. The defense, on the other hand, suggested an absolution to prevent future complications.
The Incident at the Valero Oil Terminal
This ruling is connected to an environmental protest that occurred in October 2022 at the Valero oil terminal located in the eastern part of Montreal. A group of approximately ten individuals from the Antigone collective invaded the site in the early hours, with some chaining themselves to a reinforced concrete container to obstruct access, while others ascended the structure. They cited the climate emergency as their motivation, demanding the decommissioning of a pipeline that transports oil sands from Alberta to Montreal. “As long as we occupy this place, no oil will pass,” one activist declared. The situation necessitated the involvement of numerous police and firefighters to safely remove the protesters, with the operation lasting just under 24 hours.
Among those charged are Jacob Pirro and Olivier Huard, who previously made headlines for blocking the Jacques-Cartier Bridge in October to highlight the climate emergency and advocate for the cessation of fossil fuel use. All individuals involved faced charges of mischief and obstructing police, with additional charges of breaking and entering for those who climbed the structure. While all defendants acknowledged their actions, each attempted to invoke the “necessity defense.” During the trial, many expressed their anxiety over climate change, recounting previous efforts to influence political action without success. Huard, labeled as the “leader” of the protest, revealed that the planning had spanned a year, and he had trained his peers in climbing techniques, emphasizing that their intent was to “block, without causing damage.” He described their actions as part of a civil disobedience movement.
Several experts testified for the defense, highlighting the tangible impacts of climate change, such as intensified droughts and wildfires. While acknowledging the reality of the climate crisis, the municipal prosecutor contended that the necessity defense was not applicable in this case. For such a defense to hold, the defendant must face an “imminent danger,” there must be “no reasonable and legal alternatives,” and the harm inflicted must be proportionate to the harm avoided. Ultimately, the judge sided with the prosecution, emphasizing that the defendants made a conscious choice on the day in question, which disqualified them from benefiting from the necessity defense. Despite their disappointment with the ruling, many defendants anticipated this outcome. As they exited the courtroom, they reiterated the urgency of the climate emergency and the importance of taking action before it’s too late.