Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Constitutional law - Charter of Rights - Freedom of religion - Municipal law - Zoning - Whether the courts below erred in ruling the right to freedom of religion was not infringed in the circumstances - Whether the courts below erred in considering past reprehensible conduct by the congregation - Whether the municipality should have considered the possibility of exempting the congregation from its zoning by-laws - Whether the Court of Appeal should have exercised its judicial discretion under s. 227 of the Act respecting land use planning and development, R.S.Q., c. A-19.1 (“ALUPD”), and Ville de Montréal v. Chapdelaine, J.E. 2003-987 (C.A.), and refused the order sought by the municipality.

Since the 1980s, the Applicant congregation has owned two cottages in a residential area within the territory of the Respondent municipality. The congregation also owns a 4.3-acre piece of land located within seven minutes’ walking distance from the cottages. It uses the land as a summer camp and religious education facility. The land is located in a zone where institutional uses such as worship and education are permitted. Over the years, the congregation converted the interiors of the cottages for use as a synagogue and a school. Given that this was against its zoning by-laws, the municipality objected on several occasions, issued several statements of offence and conducted inspections, but the non-residential activities continued. During those years and until at least 2001, the congregation denied that it was making non-conforming use of the buildings. It took a number of steps to reassure the municipality, thereby misleading them. However, the congregation’s increasing membership and the traffic resulting from the buildings’ use led to neighbouring citizens’ filing more and more complaints with the municipality. The municipality tried to negotiate a solution in 2002, but to no avail.