This decision considered the application of Québec's Environment Quality Act (Act), the central piece of Québec's environmental legislation. The specific issue was whether the defendant, a construction company, had developed a "path" or whether it was operating a "quarry" in connection with works in the Mont-Tremblant area. If it was found to be operating a quarry, the defendant required a certificate of authorization pursuant to the Act which it did not have.
The defendant's works included digging a hole in the mountain measuring approximately 13,200 cubic meters. The rocks recuperated in this process had been crushed and processed and then sold or used in other road works. Although the defendant argued that the extraction of the rock was necessary to set up a transfer site, it was unable to explain why the quantity of rock extracted was double that of the estimates submitted.
The Attorney General argued that the defendant's activities did not correspond to what is usually considered to be the construction of a path, and if it was not a path, it could only be the exploitation of a quarry.
Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Attorney General's position. The work carried out by the defendant, at least since 2011, was found to correspond to the definition of "quarry" provided by the Regulation respecting pits and quarries (Regulation). Even if the project was considered a path, the path would be used for the operation of a quarry. Thus, as an accessory to a quarry, the path would be subject to the Regulation and to the Act. In reaching its decisions, the Court found that no reasonable person would have undertaken the defendant's works simply to build a path in the mountains. The only explanation was that the defendant was operating a site to extract rocks for commercial purposes. The Court also noted that the project for the construction of the path was presented after the Ministry of the Environment refused to certify the project to establish a crushing and screening site.
On the basis of the above, the Court granted the Attorney General's request for an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing its activities without a certificate of authorization.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.