Company denied urgent hearing to remove protesters from Parker Lands

A Winnipeg company hoping to develop the Parker Lands will have to wait until November to know whether a court will grant an injunction to remove protesters from the area.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Herbert Rempeldecided on Wednesday there was no pressing need to grant an immediate hearing, but left thedoor open to an earlier date should the protest pose a public safety risk.

• Parker developer claims police not doing enough to remove protesters

For nearly two weeks about a dozen people have been camped out on the24-hectare property known as the Parker Lands inFort Garry in an effort to stop further destruction of an aspen forest.

With an injunction slated for November, the protesters say they will continue to block heavy equipment from being used on the site.

If an injunction had been granted Wednesday police would have had the authority to arrest the protesters. In that case, activists told CBC News, they would have voluntarily ended the encampment.

Organizer JennaVandal said she was "very pleased" the judge decided to delay the decision regarding an injunction, which will give her and others more time to put together a defence. She believes the Metis have rights to the land, and it should not be developed without input from Indigenous peoples.

• Developer takes legal action to remove protesters from Parker Lands

Environmental advocateCalDuecksaid he was relievedworkon the site will be blocked by protesters until at least November, when migratory birds that have nested in the area begin their flights south.

"Whatever happens now the birds have a chance to leave," he said.

Vandal,Dueckand other protesters named in the lawsuit have until Aug. 25 to submit their response to the landowner's statement of claim.

KevinToyne, lawyer for the two numbered companies acting as plaintiffs in the case aswell as AndrewMarquess, president of developer Gem Equities, continued to raise concerns about a public safety risk posed by the camp.

Toyne said in court Wednesday protesters have been seen wearing masks to hide their identities,and an axe was seen.

"No one would be allowed to walk in this courtroom with an axe,"Toynetold the judge. "An axe is a weapon."

After the hearing, Vandal flatly denied protesters posed any type of threat and have so far had a good relationship with both employees and police officers who have stopped by the site.

"Anyone at the site will tell you would tell you that it's been a peaceful protest since day one," she said.

A 'middle finger' to rule of law

Toynesaid land owners seethe protest as an affront to their rights, andclaim the demonstrators are trespassers.

"They [protesters] are effectively giving the middle finger to everyone who pays their taxes and the rules of law," he said.

Company denied urgent hearing to remove protesters from Parker Lands

7 years ago

Duration 1:57

A Winnipeg company hoping to develop the Parker Lands will have to wait until November to know whether a court will grant an injunction to remove protesters from the area.

The lawyer said his clients are considering hiring a private security firm to physically remove the protesters.

Protesters set up asmall camp of about six tents on the Parker Lands July 14 after Gem Equities began clearing trees. Already about one third of the aspen forest has been shredded.

• Parker developer claims police not doing enough to remove protesters
• City of Winnipeg wants back land it had swapped away

Marquess acquired theproperty in 2009in a controversial land swap with the city.

Theresidential development Gem Equitiesenvisions would becalled Oak Grove. The plan includes high-density towers, medium-density low-rise buildings, low-density townhouses and single-family homes, arranged in concentric circles around a Southwest Transitway station plaza.

City council has not approved the area plan, rezoningsor developments necessary for the company to move forward.

Mayor Brian Bowman said Wednesday city staff has asked Marquess to hold off on removing more trees and were told, "No."

As far as Toyneis concerned, theplaintiffs are fully entitled to clear the property.

"They don't require a permit, they don't require a licence," he said.