Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), 2004 SCC 61

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 01, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 SCC 61;(2004), 325 N.R. 345 (SCC)

Ent. Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (2004), 325 N.R. 345 (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. OC.002

Les Entreprises Sibeca Inc. (appellant) v. Municipalité de Frelighsburg (respondent)

(29600; 2004 CSC 61; 2004 SCC 61)

Indexed As: Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

October 1, 2004.

Summary:

A stalled development project foundered after a Quebec municipality modified a zoning bylaw and imposed new conditions on the project. The developer sold the land piece by piece. Feeling that the municipality had blocked its project, the developer sued it for the lost profits on the sale of the land.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2000] Q.J. No. 5908, allowed the action. The municipality appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (2002), 40 M.P.L.R.(3d) 157, allowed the appeal. The developer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Iacobucci, J., did not take part in the judgment.

Municipal Law - Topic 1982

Liability of municipalities - Quebec re­spon­sibility - Basis of liability - The Su­preme Court of Canada discussed the rules gov­erning the extra-contractual liabil­ity of municipalities, and more specifically the circumstances in which damages could be awarded against a municipality follow­ing the exercise of its power to make bylaws - The court first stated that under art. 1376 of the Civil Code of Quebec, the general rules of civil law were applicable unless the public body established that public law principles prevailed - When a public law rule was identified and deter­mined to be applicable, it had to be incor­porated into the law of civil liability - The court ended its discussion as follows: "...it may be conc­luded that the public law immunity that attaches to the exercise of legislative and regulatory power can be incorporated into the rules of liability applicable to public bodies. In light of the wording of art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec, an applicant can be required to establish that the public body acted in bad faith, or in circumstances leading to a conclusion that it acted in bad faith" - See paragraphs 15 to 27.

Municipal Law - Topic 1989

Liability of municipalities - Quebec re­sponsibility - Bad faith - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1982 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1989

Liability of municipalities - Quebec re­sponsibility - Bad faith - A stalled devel­op­ment project foundered after a munici­pality modified a zoning bylaw and im­posed new conditions on the project - Feel­ing that the municipality had blocked its project, the developer sued it - The trial judge allowed the action - Relying on City of Ottawa v. Boyd Builders Ltd., [1965] S.C.R. 408, the trial judge required that the municipality prove its good faith - He con­cluded that the project was blocked, quali­fying the municipality's attitude as "ad­ministrative" bad faith - However, the trial judge found that the municipal coun­cillors had not acted maliciously and could not be held liable - The judgment was reversed on appeal and the action dis­missed - The Su­preme Court of Canada ruled that Boyd Build­ers did not apply here where no per­mit application was pending - The trial judge erred in requiring the municipality to prove its good faith - Also, if a municipal council, comprised of councillors acting in good faith, adopts a bylaw, it will be con­sidered to have acted in good faith - See para­graphs 28 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Association des contribuables de Frelighs­burg c. Brome-Missisquoi (Municipalité régionale de comté), [1992] R.J.Q. 1613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6]

Ottawa (City) v. Boyd Builders Ltd., [1965] S.C.R. 408, refd to. [para. 12].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Prud'homme v. Prud'homme (2002), 297 N.R. 331; 2002 SCC 85, consd. [para. 17].

Wellbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winn­ipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, consd. [para. 20].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 21].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 22].

McCullock-Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, consd. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Jacques Jeansonne and Pierre Luc Blain, for the appellant, Entreprises Sibeca Inc.;

Guy Pepin and Pierre Le Page, for the respondent, Municipalité de Frelighsburg.

Solicitors of Record:

Deslauriers Jeansonne, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Bélanger Sauvé, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 23, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Octo­ber 1, 2004, and the following reasons were filed. Iacobucci, J., did not take part in the judg­ment:

Deschamps, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Basta­rache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

LeBel, J. (Fish, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 41 to 44.