Case information

Municipal law — By-laws — Acquired rights — Evidence — Civil procedure — Appeal — Whether right to be heard codified in art. 17 of Code of Civil Procedure confers right on party to be heard again when relevant exhibits filed at trial were found again only after hearing on appeal — Whether s. 227 of Act respecting land use planning and development codified, without limiting, judicial discretion of Quebec Superior Court arising from its inherent superintending and reforming power recognized by this Court in Three Rivers Boatman Ltd. v. Conseil canadien des relations ouvrières et al., [1969] S.C.R. 607, and as such, whether this discretion is distinguishable from common law doctrine of promissory estoppel; thus, what are basis and scope of this discretion to refuse to order cessation of use that is non-conforming under urban planning by-law? — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, art. 17 — Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A 19.1, s. 227.

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.

The applicant Bullion Properties Inc. is the owner of lots 2 162 009 and 2 162 026, which are located in the city centre of Montréal, in the cadastre of Quebec. The applicant purchased lot 2 162 026 on November 1, 2001, and lot 2 162 009 in March 1998. The applicant Safeway Parking Canada Ltd. has operated a commercial parking lot on these lots since 1998. In 2006, the respondent, Ville de Montréal, initiated action to close non-conforming parking lots. As a result, in 2006 and 2007, the applicants received thirty or so statements of offence for using the lots and authorizing the use of the lots as a commercial parking lot in contravention of the by-laws in force at the time. In October 2007, Ville de Montréal also went before the courts to seek an order for the cessation of the use of a commercial parking lot that it alleged was non-conforming pursuant to s. 227 of the Act respecting land use planning and development. The applicants’ defence to Ville de Montréal’s allegations was that they had an acquired right to the use of a commercial parking lot. The proceedings were stayed before the trial could take place, however, because the applicants planned to close the parking lot and develop the lots. Negotiations then took place between the applicants’ urban planner and Ville de Montréal officials. Following the failure of the negotiations, the parties decided to ready the stayed case for trial. The Superior Court dismissed Ville de Montréal’s application for the cessation of a non conforming use with respect to lots 2 162 009 and 2 162 026 of the Quebec cadastre. It accepted the applicants’ defence and declared that the lots in question, in their entirety, are protected by acquired rights for the operation of an outdoor commercial public parking lot. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.