Red dust and contaminants in Limoilou: the Court of Appeal hears the challenge of the dismissal of a class action
The case of contaminants released into the air of Limoilou is back in court, this time before the Court of Appeal as a group of citizens demands the reversal of a decision rejecting a second class action in this case .
• Read also: The Conservatives want to move nickel transshipment to Lévis
• Read also: Sol Zanetti wants answers on nickel case
Appellants Véronique Lalande and Louis Duchesne, who are behind the Citizen Vigilance Initiative of the Port of Quebec, appealed the decision rendered in March 2020.
Judge Jacques G. Bouchard had at that time established that the plaintiffs’ allegations “did not stand up to an objective analysis of the evidence”.
The magistrate also agreed with the arguments of the defense, which argued that the dust came from “urban sources”, in particular de-icing salts.
Photo archives QMI Agency, Marcel Tremblay
« Revisable Error »
On Monday, the attorneys for the appellants attempted to demonstrate that the conclusions of the expert behind this analysis were erroneous and that Judge Bouchard had erred in basing his decision on them.
“When we say he has blinkers on and we say that with all due respect to the trial judge, these are the times he did not discuss the voluminous evidence before him which contradicted the conclusion he reached. happened, ”pleaded Me Philippe Trudel, arguing that this was « a reviewable error » on appeal.
His colleague Clara Poissant-Lesperance added that Judge Bouchard “did not analyze the evidence with the right glasses”.
Abrasive spreading periods
In particular, she pointed out that the residents had observed episodes outside the periods of spreading abrasives or heating with wood.
The lawyers of the collective of citizens will continue their pleadings on Tuesday and will be followed by the opposing party.
The lawyers for Compagnie d’arrimage de Québec and the Quebec Port Authority will obviously try to convince the appeal judges that the initial decision did not violate any rule of law and must therefore be upheld.