The Supreme Court of Canada has turned down a bid by Green Party candidate Lynne Quarmby and other protesters to appear before National Energy Board hearings on the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline in Burnaby, B.C.

Quarmby — along with other eight other pipeline opponents, including the ForestEthics Advocacy Association (which was granted intervenor status) — argued before the top court that they represent “a voice of the public interest that is not merely being ignored by the Board’s interest … it is being silenced.”

The highest court’s dismissal is another step in the lengthy legal battles waged by some citizens and by the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby against the proposed $5.4 billion expansion of the pipeline, intended to connect Alberta oil with Asian markets.

Quarmby, a molecular biology professor at Simon Fraser University, is currently the Green candidate for Burnaby North—Seymour, one of six new B.C. ridings at play in the current federal election.

When Quarmby was arrested for deliberately crossing a police tape on Burnaby Mountain to protest Trans Mountain’s attempts to drill test holes in the area, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May invited her to run. According to Eric Grenier of the seat-projection website threehundredandeight.com, as of September 8, Quarmby was polling about five per cent of the vote.

Opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is a key issue in the riding, which takes in parts of Burnaby and North Vancouver.

Quarmby and her fellow applicants argued their failure to be granted standing in National Energy Board hearings on the project violated their Charter of Rights’ guarantee of freedom of speech.

They contend that pipeline opponents were denied participation in the hearings because of the “content of their expression” after NEB rules were changed by the Conservative government — limiting speakers to those who are directly affected by a proposed development, or those with relevant information or expertise.

The federal government, in opposing the protesters’ bid, argued that “though the applicants appear to wish it were otherwise, the purpose of the NEB is not to be a forum for expression.”

As usual in leave to appeal hearings, the Supreme Court didn’t give reasons for why it decided to toss out the protesters’ challenge.