Pierre Le Page

The appellant developer purchased land to build a recreational and residential project.

After the developer's building permits expired, the newly elected municipal council amended the zoning by-law to require a comprehensive development program and construction adjacent to public roads, effectively halting the project.

The developer sued the municipality for loss of profits, alleging bad faith.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a municipality enjoys relative immunity when exercising its regulatory powers and can only be held civilly liable under the Civil Code of Québec if it acts in bad faith or irrationally.

The Court found no evidence of bad faith, as the municipality's objective to protect the natural environment was legitimate.

Françoise Nadon, an intervener in the lower courts representing a class action group seeking ragweed eradication, brought a motion to be substituted or added as a party to contest an application for leave to appeal filed by Canadian Pacific Limited and others.

The respondents, including various municipalities, did not intend to contest the leave application.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a private party cannot substitute itself for municipal bodies, Nadon's participation was necessary to fully inform the Court.

The motion was granted in part, authorizing Nadon to file an objection to the application for leave as if she were a respondent.

The appellant landscaping and lawn care companies challenged a Town of Hudson by-law that restricted the use of pesticides within its perimeter to specified locations and activities.

The appellants argued the by-law was ultra vires the municipality's authority and conflicted with federal and provincial pesticide legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law was validly enacted under the general welfare provision of the provincial Cities and Towns Act, as it was genuinely aimed at furthering public health and safety.

The Court also found no operational conflict with federal or provincial legislation, as dual compliance was possible, establishing a tri-level regulatory regime for pesticides.

The appellant municipality sought dismissal of a bodily injury action on the basis that the respondent failed to comply with the 15-day notice requirement in municipal legislation after a sidewalk fall.

The appeal turned on whether art. 2930 of the Civil Code of Québec, which preserves the three-year prescriptive period for bodily injury claims notwithstanding contrary provisions, applies to municipalities and overrides s. 585 of the Cities and Towns Act.

The Court held that art. 2930 is a mandatory provision of public order, applies to legal persons established in the public interest, and takes precedence over the municipal notice regime insofar as that regime hinders bodily injury claims.

The Court also held that the Minister of Justice’s commentaries may assist with interpretation but are not binding.

The appellant's immovables were sold at public auction for non-payment of taxes and acquired by the respondent City.

The appellant brought an action to quash the tax by-laws and the sale.

While the action was pending, the City sold the immovables to a third party.

The courts eventually quashed the by-laws and the sale.

The appellant then brought a new action claiming damages and the monetary equivalent of the immovables, alleging a sale of another's property and unjust enrichment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the appellant had a valid claim for the recovery of a thing not due, the subsequent action for damages and monetary reimbursement was prescribed under the six-month limitation period in the Cities and Towns Act.