Case information

Administrative law – Judicial review – Municipal law – Expropriation – Application for order requiring city of Blainville to acquire lots by expropriation – Whether Superior Court’s superintending and reforming power with respect to actions of public authority includes power to order public authority: (a) to take action it undertook to take, or whether power is limited to declaring decision null or awarding damages against authority; (b) to commence expropriation proceedings – Cities and Towns Act, CQLR, c. C-19, s. 570.

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.

In February 2007 and December 2009, Platinum et al. purchased lots in the city of Blainville. In August 2009, some of the lots were given “conservation” zoning. The city later passed, among other things, a resolution setting out its undertaking to become the owner of the lots within 12 months after a certificate of authorization was issued for a project in the Chambéry neighbourhood, where the lots in question were located. It obtained that certificate in 2010. During the years that followed, the parties undertook negotiations for the acquisition of the lots by mutual agreement, but they never reached an agreement. In 2013, Platinum et al. instituted proceedings in the Superior Court asking that the city be ordered to commence proceedings to expropriate the lots.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, since it found nothing in the evidence that showed an undertaking by the parties. It also found that the legitimate expectation principle was not applicable in this case, since the evidence showed that Platinum had acquired the lots knowing the city’s intentions with regard to them. In addition, s. 570 of the Cities and Towns Act gave the city a discretion with regard to the method of acquiring immovables. The exercise of that discretion was therefore not subject to judicial review.

The Court of Appeal was of the view that the Superior Court had not erred in holding that it could not order the city to expropriate the lots in question. It found that s. 570 of the Cities and Towns Act gave the city the choice to acquire immovables by expropriating them or by purchasing them by mutual agreement and that, through a by-law, the city had reserved that discretion.