Avrith v. Laval (City), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 137
City of Laval Appellant
v.
Henry Avrith and Philip Avrith Respondents
and
Le Corbu Holdings Limitée Intervener in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal
Indexed as: Avrith v. Laval (City)
File No.: 21716.
1991: October 10.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier and Cory JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Expropriation ‑‑ Time limit for contesting right of expropriation ‑‑ Failure to contest expropriation within 30 days of notice of expropriation ‑‑ Expropriated parties misled through fault of expropriating party as to existence and nature of their rights ‑‑ Impossibility of acting ‑‑ Start of time limit for contesting suspended.
Cases Cited
Applied: Oznaga v. Société d'exploitation des loteries et courses du Québec, 1981 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 113; City of Montreal v. Vaillancourt, 1976 CanLII 205 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 849; In re Réserves du Nord (1973) Ltée: Hôtel Pilma sur le Lac Inc. v. Bertrand, [1984] C.A. 500.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal[^1], affirming a judgment of the Superior Court[^2], allowing the expropriated parties' motion for relief from their failure to contest the right of expropriation. Appeal dismissed.
André Guérin, for the appellant.
Daniel St‑Pierre and Jean‑Maurice Charbonneau, for the respondents.
//Lamer C.J.//
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Lamer C.J. -- It will not be necessary to hear from you. In view of the fact that the respondents, through the fault of the appellant, were misled regarding the existence and the nature of their rights, as determined by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal and for the reasons handed down by this Court in Oznaga v. Société d'exploitation des loteries et courses du Québec, 1981 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 113; City of Montreal v. Vaillancourt, 1976 CanLII 205 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 849, and In re Réserves du Nord (1973) Ltée: Hôtel Pilma sur le Lac Inc. v. Bertrand, [1984] C.A. 500, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Allaire & Associés, Laval.
Solicitors for the respondent Henry Avrith: Kravitz & Kravitz, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent Philip Avrith: Sklar & Pitts, Montréal.
[^1]: C.A. Montréal, No. 1989 CanLII 1075 (QC CA), 500-09-000598-896, October 13, 1989 (Malouf, Gendreau and Baudouin JJ.A.).
[^2]: Sup. Ct. Montréal, No. 500-34-000093-862, March 29, 1989 (Provost J.).