Case information

Municipal law – Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A 19.1 – Application for cessation of non conforming use – Promissory estoppel – Whether doctrine of promissory estoppel can be relied on where city tolerated non conforming use under zoning by law for long period of time – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge’s withdrawal of three issues relating to doctrine of promissory estoppel had not prevented applicant from defending itself.

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 2016, the respondent Ville de Montréal (City) served the applicant with an originating application under s. 227 of the Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A 19.1, in which it asked that the applicant cease operating its erotic massage establishment. During case management, Duprat J. rendered a judgment in which, among other things, he eliminated the issues proposed by the applicant with respect to the allegation that the City had acted improperly and that it was precluded because it had tolerated the applicant’s use. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from that decision. In its view, [TRANSLATION] “it is well established in the case law that a city’s non enforcement of a zoning by law in the past is not a defence (Polai v. City of Toronto, [1973] S.C.R. 38)” (para. 4). The Court of Appeal also found that the trial judge’s elimination of those issues had not prevented the applicant from defending itself, since a trial judge “always has the power and discretion to consider any legal argument arising from the evidence of the facts before the judge” (para. 5).