Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), (2004) 323 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 323 N.R. 1 (SCC);2004 SCC 48;[2004] ACS no 45;[2004] 2 SCR 650;[2004] SCJ No 45 (QL);121 CRR (2d) 261;[2004] CarswellQue 1546;49 MPLR (3d) 157;323 NR 1;17 Admin LR (4th) 165;241 DLR (4th) 83

Congrégation des témoins v. Lafontaine (2004), 323 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JN.034

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine, Roberto Biagioni and Denis Léveillé (appellants) v. Municipality of the village of Lafontaine, Harold Larente and Attorney General of Quebec (respondents) and Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(29507; 2004 SCC 48; 2004 CSC 48)

Indexed As: Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

June 30, 2004.

Summary:

The Jehovah's Witnesses (the applicants) thrice applied to a municipality for the rezoning of land so that they could build a place of worship. They contended that land was not available in zone P-3 of the munici­pality, where places of worship were auth­orized. They were unsuccessful all three times. The first time, the Village gave rea­sons and said that if rezoning went ahead, taxes for neighbouring residents would increase since religious congregations were exempt from taxes. The second time, the Village only said that land was available in zone P-3. The third time, the Village said that it was not required to provide the appli­cants with a justification. The applicants sought mandamus.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 99-333, dismissed the applica­tion. The applicants appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Robert, C.J.Q., dissenting, in a decision reported [2002] R.J.Q. 3015, dismissed the appeal. The applicants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, Bas­tarache, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dis­senting, allowed the appeal. The court re­mitted the matter to the Village for recon­sideration.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expe­ctation - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2268

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Arbitrary acts - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of duty) - The Jehovah's Witnesses (the applicants) thrice applied to a municipality for the rezoning of land so that they could build a place of worship - They contended that land was not available in zone P-3 of the municipal­ity, where places of worship were author­ized - They were unsuccessful all three times - The first time, the Village gave reasons and said that if rezoning went ahead, taxes for neighbouring residents would increase since religious congrega­tions were exempt from taxes - The second time, the Village only said that land was available in zone P-3 - The third time, the Village said that it was not required to pro­vide the applicants with a justification - The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the second and third refusals - The court ruled that in failing to give reasons for these refusals, the municipality breached the duty of procedural fairness it owed to the applicants, a duty heightened by the expectations established by the municipali­ty's own conduct and the importance of the decision to the applicants, impacting as it did on their right to practise the religion of their choice - The municipality acted in a manner that was arbitrary and straddled the boundary separating good from bad faith - See paragraphs 1 to 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 389

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Land use control - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 3].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 3].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 3].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 3].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [paras. 5, 87].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Toronto (City) v. Board of Education (Roman Catholic Separate) of Toronto (City), [1926] A.C. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kuchma v. Tache (Rural Municipality), [1945] S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 6].

Norfolk v. Roberts (1915), 50 S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 6].

Glover and Sam Kee, Re (1914), 20 B.C.R. 219 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Howard v. Toronto (City), [1928] 1 D.L.R. 952 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 7].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the Univer­sity of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, refd to. [para. 9].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Qi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 33 Imm. L.R.(2d) 57 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mercier-Néron v. Canada (Ministre de la Santé nationale et du bien-être social) et al. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 36 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663; 297 N.R. 331; 2002 SCC 85, refd to. [para. 12].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 33].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

2419-6388 Québec Inc. et autres v. Saint-Michel Archange (Municipalité) et autres, [1992] R.J.Q. 875; 45 Q.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Orford (Canton) v. Fonds de placement Hamel inc., [1995] A.Q. No. 2260 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, consd. [para. 64].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, consd. [para. 68].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 69].

Trinity Western University et al. v. Col­lege of Teachers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772; 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 69].

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 94, consd. [para. 75].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 77].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kings­ley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(a) [para. 37, Appendix].

Lafontaine (Village), Bylaws, Bylaw No. 362, sect. 2.2.1 [para. 40, Appendix]; sect. 2.2.3.3 [para. 55]; sect. 2.2.5.3 [para. 40, Appendix].

Land Use Planning and Development, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A-19.1, sect. 113(3) [para. 56, Appendix].

Authors and Works Noticed:

L'Heureux, Jacques, Droit municipal qué­bécois (1984), t. II, p. 317, para. 606 [para. 63].

Ogilvie, M.H., Religious Institutions and the Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 2003), pp. 27, 56 [para. 67].

Woehrling, José, L'obligation d'accommo­dement raisonnable et l'adaptation de la société à la diversité religieuse (1998), 43 McGill L.J. 325, pp. 371 [para. 65]; 379 [para. 76].

Counsel:

André Carbonneau and David M. Gnam, for the appellants;

Michel Lalande and Jean-Pierre St-Amour, for the respondents, Municipalité du village de Lafontaine and Harold La­rente;

Mario Normandin, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Gerald D. Chipeur and Ivan Bernardo, for the interveners, the Seventh-Day Advent­ist Church in Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Andrew K. Lokan and Megan Shortreed, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

André Carbonneau, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Deveau, Bissonnette, Monfette, Fortin & Associés, Saint-Jérôme, Quebec, for the respondents, Municipalité du village de Lafontaine and Harold Larente;

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Que­bec, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Chipeur Advocates, Calgary, Alberta, for the interveners, the Seventh-Day Adven­tist Church in Canada and the Evan­geli­cal Fellowship of Canada;

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on June 19, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bas­tarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Des­champs and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on June 30, 2004 and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Iacobucci, Binnie, Arbour and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

Major, J., dissenting - see paragraph 36;

LeBel, J., dissenting (Bastarache and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 37 to 93;