Case information

Constitutional law — Remedy — Restitution — Claim for reimbursement of sums paid under by laws held to be unconstitutional — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment, by giving precedence to Civil Code of Québec, reversed hierarchy of rules and denied constitutional nature of remedy recognized in Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 3 — Whether Court of Appeal imported into its analysis discretion not allowed either by Constitution or, alternatively, by Civil Code of Québec.

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 2012 and 2013, the respondent cities passed by laws to manage the activities of telecommunications and broadcasting companies within their territory and to charge fees for those activities. The applicants, Videotron et al., later brought actions to challenge the constitutionality of those by laws. During the proceedings in the Superior Court, Videotron et al. agreed to pay, under protest, the fees required by the cities under the impugned by laws. However, they asked that the fees be reimbursed to them if the provisions of the by laws were declared unconstitutional.
The Superior Court found that the impugned by laws, in their pith and substance, regulated the planning, construction, location, maintenance and retention of telecommunications networks, a matter falling under Parliament’s jurisdiction over telecommunications under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The by law of the city of Gatineau was therefore declared invalid, inapplicable and of no force or effect and was quashed. The Superior Court made no order concerning the impugned by law of the city of Terrebonne because it had already been repealed. Nor did the Superior Court order the reimbursement of the sums paid by Videotron et al.
The Court of Appeal found that the appeal of the Attorney General of Quebec had become moot because of the repeal of the by laws in question. It also found that the trial judge had not erred in denying restitution