Case information

Expropriation — Prescription — Zoning by law placing all of respondent Ms. Dupras’s land in “conservation” zone — Respondent alleging disguised expropriation of her land in courts below, but city arguing that her action was prescribed — Whether application for leave to appeal raises question of public importance.

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 2006, the applicant, Ville de Mascouche (“city”), adopted a zoning by law that placed all of the respondent Ms. Dupras’s land in a “conservation” zone. As a result of that change, all construction was prohibited and the use of the land was essentially limited to sylvicultural and maple syrup activities and cross-country recreation. Discussions later took place concerning the acquisition of the land by the city, but no agreement was reached. Ms. Dupras believed that there had been disguised expropriation of her land and brought an action alleging such expropriation. The city argued that her action was prescribed. The Superior Court accepted Ms. Dupras’s arguments and found that disguised expropriation had occurred when the by law was passed. It also determined that Ms. Dupras’s action was not prescribed because it had not become clear until 2016 that the city would not purchase the land. The Court of Appeal dismissed the city’s appeal. Characterizing the issues of disguised expropriation and prescription as [TRANSLATION] “highly factual”, the court said that it was unable to intervene in the absence of palpable and overriding errors.