Judge stays case against environmental activists who climbed Montreal bridge over rights violations

A pair of protesters are removed from the Jacques Cartier Bridge by first responders, in Montreal, Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christinne Muschi

A Quebec judge has tossed out a criminal case against two environmental activists who climbed the Jacques-Cartier Bridge in Montreal after ruling that their rights were violated during the judicial process.

Olivier Huard and Jacob Pirro were arrested after climbing the bridge on Oct. 22, 2024, as part of a demonstration partly led by Antigone collective to demand an end to fossil fuel extraction and denounce the government’s inaction in the fight against climate change.

Quebec Court Justice Mairi Springate ruled there were a number of steps taken by the Crown prosecutor, including imposing excessive bail conditions, that were unlawful, and violated their freedom of expression.

Last week, the judge granted a motion to issue a stay of proceedings in the case, handing down a legal victory to the accused, represented by defence lawyer Barbara Bedont. A stay brings an end to legal proceedings.

The 41-page ruling found that the prosecutor forced a choice on two accused — either spend more time in jail awaiting trial or waive their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

One of their bail conditions prohibited the accused from referring directly or indirectly to the charges in any media, including social media. The other banned them from participating in any demonstration or public gathering of more than three people.

On the first condition, the judge said it should only be applied in rare circumstances and only when truly necessary, and that its use in this case was arbitrary.

“It is clear that the scope of the proposed condition was excessively broad and unduly infringed on freedom of expression,” the judge ruled.

“The contested condition served no purpose other than to muzzle the defendants and prevent them from accessing a public forum, which was an illegitimate punitive objective.”

On the second condition, banning public gatherings, it was an “abuse of process” and violated the accused’s rights guaranteed under section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

“Such a condition prevents the person subject to it from attending an outdoor concert or even picnicking with a few friends in a park,” the judge noted.

There was a third controversial decision taken by the Crown that drew criticism from the court. The Crown initially proceeded by indictment, and the accused opted for a jury trial. However, on Jan. 31, 2025, the prosecutor filed a new information charging the accused with the same offences but by summary conviction — a move that deprived the accused of being tried by a jury of their peers.

The Crown justified the move by telling the court that the new mode of prosecution was “a benevolent gesture towards the accused” — one that would reduce the maximum sentence if found guilty and would allow for a more efficient use of the judicial resources.

But the court disagreed. The right to a jury trial “is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system,” the judge explained in her decision, adding that denying this right constituted an abuse of process “because it undermines society’s expectations of fairness in the administration of justice.”

“This is a rare case where a stay of proceedings in this matter does not constitute a draconian remedy,” the judge wrote.

While the case has been tossed out, it doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the proceedings. According to the judgment, the prosecutor has until Feb. 5, 2026 to decide whether or not to resume the case before the Superior Court.