Case information

Municipal law — By-laws — Validity — Zoning — Subdivision — Public works — Development project approved by City — Memorandum of agreement not signed — Amendment to municipal subdivision by law preventing project from being carried out because minimum area standard not met — Proper interpretation of s. 115 of Act respecting land use planning and development — Whether term “public works” in s. 115 of Act includes street — Whether rule that subdivision standards must be uniform within same zone exists under s. 115 of Act — Whether it is error of law to say that municipality can adopt unlawful subdivision standard under s. 115 of Act if its purpose in doing so is to ensure that particular by law is consistent with land use and development plan of regional county municipality — Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A 19.1, s. 115.

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 respondent, Ville de Saint Colomban (“City”), approved a project on land belonging to one of the applicants. The project required public works, which were to be performed by the other applicant; the City therefore authorized the mayor to sign a memorandum of agreement with the first applicant, which had to provide amounts to guarantee the performance of the works. However, the memorandum of agreement was never signed. Following an amendment to the municipal subdivision by law, the City indicated that it would be impossible to carry out the project because the lots concerned did not have the minimum area required. The applicants commenced legal proceedings, including an application for mandamus to force the City to sign the memorandum of agreement and an application to have the amendment to the subdivision by law declared null on the ground that it was unlawful because it distinguished between lots on a discriminatory basis, namely proximity to an existing street.

The trial judge ruled in the City’s favour and dismissed the application for mandamus. On the application for a declaration of nullity, the judge found that a municipality can adopt a subdivision by law providing for minimum area standards that vary based on the proximity of the land to “public works”, including a street. The City was also required to adopt standards corresponding to the minimum standards set by the regional county municipality. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal, finding that the trial judge had not made any error. It also stated that the rule cited by the applicants, to the effect that uses must be uniform within the same zone, applied to the zoning by law, not the subdivision by law. The distinctions drawn were expressly authorized by the legislature.