Serge Barrière

The appellant municipality sought to restore a conviction under a municipal noise by-law after the lower courts held the provision ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The case concerned amplified music and commentary projected from a nightclub entrance onto a downtown street, raising both municipal law and Charter issues.

The majority held that, on a contextual interpretation, the by-law targeted only disruptive noise that stands out from environmental noise and therefore fell within the municipality’s delegated nuisance power.

The Court further held that the prohibition infringed freedom of expression on public streets, clarified the approach to expression on government-owned property, and concluded the infringement was justified under s. 1 because combatting urban noise pollution was pressing and the measure minimally impaired expression.

The appeal was allowed with costs, over a dissent that would have found the provision ultra vires and unjustified.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of a municipal surtax on non-residential buildings imposed by the City of Montreal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the surtax is a direct tax raised for provincial purposes within the meaning of s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the taxes fall into the category of true land taxes.

The appellants challenged municipal real estate and business tax assessments imposed after public hospital laundries were consolidated into a non-profit community laundry structure overseen by a regional council.

Applying the ordinary and teleological rules of tax interpretation, the Court held that tax exemptions are not automatically subject to strict construction and that substance may prevail over form where consistent with legislative purpose.

Although the appellants were not direct alter egos of the public establishments because the requisite control element was absent, the Court found an almost complete identity of patrimony between them and the member institutions.

The community laundry and the regional council were therefore entitled to the relevant exemptions under the municipal taxation statute, except that the regional council's 1987 claim was prescribed under the one-year limitation period.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'any subsequent purchaser' in s. 792 of the Charter of the City of Montreal.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Court of Appeal that the phrase includes a purchaser in a judicial sale, as the Charter makes no distinction in respect of the latter.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.