A man who built a home without a permit in a public forest in Chaudière-Appalaches must dismantle the structure and leave the site, the Quebec Superior Court has ruled. The premises' resident, Simon Lebel, failed to prove his Métis heritage in order to retain his facilities.
Since there is no defense and no evidence to support Simon Lebel's claim that it is legitimate to occupy this territory without the authorization of the State, the Court has no choice but to grant the Court's request [procureur] concluded Judge Lise Bergeron in her ruling handed down last month.
The court orders Mr. Lebel to restore the premises within ten days. Otherwise, all property on site will be confiscated and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MRNF) may carry out the work at Mr. Lebel's expense. Lebel.
Construction prohibited
It was MRNF employees who discovered Mr. Lebel's facilities in November 2022, built in the Central Lake sector in Saint-Zacharie, in the MRC Etchemins. Holidaymakers had reported to the authorities that clearing work was being carried out in the area.
Inspectors subsequently discovered that it was a building under construction in the form of a chalet with an outbuilding on the site. The ministry will then take legal action to dismantle the facilities.
Throughout the legal proceedings, Mr. Lebel does not deny that he is the occupant of the premises and the author of the development works, but believes that he has the right to occupy these lands and claims to be a member of the Métis Nation of the Rising Sun. .
The Métis Nation of the Rising Sun, a Gaspé organization that brings together several thousand members, is not recognized as an official First Nation by Ottawa or the courts.
However, Mr. Lebel provides no evidence of his origins and the existence of his Métis community. The Powley test, a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, creates a list of ten criteria, such as: B. family ties or community membership to determine whether a person can benefit from the rights granted to Métis people.
According to Judge Bergeron, Simon Lebel's arguments meet none of the criteria of this test. The man, representing himself without a lawyer, offers a defense that is met with some confusion, she writes.
Mr. Lebel does not provide any evidence of genealogy and there are no documents or witness statements indicating that Mr. Lebel is part of a community that has a right to the area in question.
It seems that in the confusion of Simon Lebel's defense a more political than legal problem emerges, writes Lise Bergeron in conclusion.