Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe et al., (2010) 407 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 407 N.R. 1 (SCC);2010 SCC 38;[2010] 2 SCR 453;407 NR 1

Que. (A.G.) v. Lacombe (2010), 407 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: [2010] N.R. TBEd. OC.012

Attorney General of Quebec (appellant) v. Anabelle Lacombe, Jacques Picard, 3845443 Canada Inc. and Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of British Columbia, Municipality of Sacré-Coeur and Greater Toronto Airports Authority (intervenors)

(32608; 2010 SCC 38; 2010 CSC 38)

Indexed As: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

October 15, 2010.

Summary:

Since 2005, a company owned by Lacombe and Picard operated an air excursion business out of Gobeil Lake, Quebec, under a licence from the federal Department of Transport issued pursuant to the federal Aeronautics Act. The company registered its aerodrome on Gobeil Lake under Canadian Aviation Regulations. In 2006, the Municipality of Sacré-Coeur applied for an injunction against Lacombe and Picard, arguing that operation of the aerodrome and the associated business violated the zoning for Gobeil Lake (i.e., the Sacré-Coeur Municipal Bylaw 210 as amended by Bylaw 260).

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2006] R.D.I. 320; 2006 QCCS 1171, allowed the application. The court found that the legislation at issue was a valid municipal zoning bylaw, with only incidental effects on the federal subject of aeronautics. The court rejected Lacombe and Picard's defence that, despite its validity, the bylaw did not apply to their aerodrome because of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. Lacombe and Picard appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2008] R.J.Q. 598; 2008 QCCA 426, allowed the appeal. Applying Johannesson v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul (1951 SCC), the court held that the bylaw, though valid, could not apply to Lacombe and Picard's aerodrome because of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed. At issue was whether the provincial zoning legislation was valid; if so, whether the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity prevented the application of the provincial law; and finally, whether the doctrine of federal paramountcy prevailed over the provincial zoning law.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Deschamps, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the impugned portion of the provincial law at issue in this case fell outside the jurisdiction of the province and was ultra vires. Furthermore, it was not sufficiently integrated within a valid legislative scheme to be saved under the doctrine of ancillary powers. Thus, the impugned portion of the provincial law was invalid (i.e., the amendments brought by Bylaw 260 to arts. 4.1 and 4.2 and Schedule B to Bylaw 210 were ultra vires). Having reached that conclusion, it was not necessary to consider the application of interjurisdictional immunity or federal paramountcy. Though the court's reasoning differed somewhat, it agreed in the result with the Quebec Court of Appeal that the province's claim could not prevail. The court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and read down the municipal bylaw so that it did not affect aerodromes.

Aeronautics - Topic 1821

Airports - Operation of - Zoning regulations - General - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1581

Extent of powers conferred - Double aspect doctrine - General - [See fourth and fifth Constitutional Law - Topic 1701 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The ancillary powers doctrine may be briefly described. Recognizing that a degree of jurisdictional overlap is inevitable in our constitutional order, the law accepts the validity of measures that lie outside a legislature's competence, if these measures constitute an integral part of a legislative scheme that comes within provincial jurisdiction" - See paragraph 32 - The court stated also that "... it is now well established that both Parliament and the legislatures may avail themselves of ancillary legislative powers" - See paragraph 34.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The ancillary powers doctrine permits one level of government to trench on the jurisdiction of the other in order to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme. In pith and substance, provisions enacted pursuant to the ancillary powers doctrine fall outside the enumerated powers of their enacting body ... Consequently, the invocation of ancillary powers runs contrary to the notion that Parliament and the legislatures have sole authority to legislate within the jurisdiction allocated to them by the Constitution Act, 1867. Because of this, the availability of ancillary powers is limited to situations in which the intrusion on the powers of the other level of government is justified by the important role that the extrajurisdictional provision plays in a valid legislative scheme. The relation cannot be insubstantial ..." - See paragraph 35.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The ancillary powers doctrine is not to be confused with the incidental effects rule. The ancillary powers doctrine applies where, as here, a provision is, in pith and substance, outside the competence of its enacting body. The potentially invalid provision will be saved where it is an important part of a broader legislative scheme that is within the competence of the enacting body. The incidental effects rule, by contrast, applies when a provision, in pith and substance, lies within the competence of the enacting body but touches on a subject assigned to the other level of government. It holds that such a provision will not be invalid merely because it has an incidental effect on a legislative competence that falls beyond the jurisdiction of its enacting body. Mere incidental effects will not warrant the invocation of ancillary powers" - See paragraph 36.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Nor is the ancillary powers doctrine to be confused with the double aspect doctrine. In Canadian Western Bank, at para. 30, Binnie and LeBel JJ. explained that the double aspect doctrine recognizes the overlapping jurisdiction of the two levels of government: '... some matters are by their very nature impossible to categorize under a single head of power: they may have both provincial and federal aspects. Thus the fact that a matter may for one purpose and in one aspect fall within federal jurisdiction does not mean that it cannot, for another purpose and in another aspect, fall within provincial competence. ...' By contrast, ancillary powers apply only where a legislative provision does not come within those heads of power assigned to its enacting body under the Constitution Act, 1867" - See paragraph 37.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between the ancillary powers doctrine, the double aspect doctrine and the incidental effects rule - The court stated that "In summary, only the ancillary powers doctrine concerns legislation that, in pith and substance, falls outside the jurisdiction of its enacting body. Laws raising a double aspect come within the jurisdiction of their enacting body, but intrude on the jurisdiction of the other level of government because of the overlap in the constitutional division of powers. Similarly, the incidental effects rule applies where the main thrust of the law comes within the jurisdiction of its enacting body, but the law has subsidiary effects that cannot come within the jurisdiction of that body" - See paragraph 38.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - At issue was whether a municipal zoning bylaw that in pith and substance related to a federal head of power only, could be upheld under the ancillary powers doctrine - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the evolution of the test for when the ancillary powers doctrine could be applied - The court noted that since General Motors v. City National Leasing (SCC 1989), the court had applied the test outlined by Dickson, C.J. (i.e., a necessity test should apply to serious intrusions on the powers of the other branch of government, while a rational functional test should apply to lesser intrusions) - The court noted criticisms of that approach, but found it unnecessary to deal with them, because the rational functional test was applicable in this case - Under that test, ancillary powers would only save a provision that was rationally and functionally connected to the purpose of the legislative scheme it purportedly furthered - It was not enough that the measure supplement the legislative scheme, it had to actively further it - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1706

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - Legislation ancillary to provincial powers - The Municipality of Sacré-Coeur (Quebec) amended its zoning bylaw to effectively prohibit the construction of water aerodromes in the vacation area of Gobeil Lake and throughout much of the municipality - An issue arose as to whether the amendments were valid provincial law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the impugned amendments were invalid - The impugned legislation was, in pith and substance, the regulation of aeronautics, a matter within exclusive federal jurisdiction (i.e., peace, order and good government of Canada) - The amendments did not fall under any provincial heads of power - The court considered whether the amendments could, nevertheless, be found valid because they were ancillary to valid provincial provisions (i.e., whether the amendments were rationally and functionally connected to valid provincial zoning objectives) - The court held that the amendments did not meet the rational functional connection test - It had not been shown that the amendments furthered the zoning purposes of the original bylaw, in either purpose or effect - The amendments were simply, on their face and in their impact, measures directed at removing aviation activities from a significant part of the municipality - No redeeming connection was established, and the impugned legislation could not be habilitated by invoking ancillary powers - The court read down the municipal bylaw so that it did not affect aerodromes - See paragraphs 1 to 58.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1706

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - Legislation ancillary to provincial powers - [See all Constitutional Law - Topic 1701 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1761

Extent of powers conferred - Necessarily incidental doctrine - General - [See third and fifth Constitutional Law - Topic 1701 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507

Determination of validity of Statutes or Acts - General principles - Reading down - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2508

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Provincial legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether amendments to a municipal bylaw were valid provincial legislation, stated that "The first step in determining the validity of the amendments brought by bylaw 260 is to identify their dominant characteristic ... This is known as the 'matter' of the legislation. Once the matter of the legislation has been determined, the next step is to assign this matter to one or more heads of legislative power ... If the matter comes within one of the heads of power allocated to the provinces under the Constitution Act, 1867, then the impugned law is valid. If it does not, then the court must consider whether the prima facie invalid law is saved by the doctrine of ancillary powers (also known as the ancillary doctrine ...)" - See paragraph 19.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance or matter - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there were two aspects to the characterization of the pith and substance of a law: (1) the purpose of the legislation and (2) its effect - "The purpose of a law may be determined by examining intrinsic evidence, like purposive clauses and the general structure of the act. It may also be determined with reference to extrinsic evidence, such as Hansard or other accounts of the legislative process ... The effect of a law is found in both the legal effect of the text and the practical consequences that flow from the application of the statute ..." - See paragraph 20.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance or matter - General principles - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 and Constitutional Law - Topic 2508 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 4710

Peace, order and good government clause - Particular legislative purposes - Aeronautics - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an argument by the Province of Quebec that the federal and provincial governments enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction with respect to the placement of aerodromes - Rather, the location of aerodromes was a matter within exclusive federal jurisdiction - "Aeronautics falls within a residuum of national importance, which brings it under Parliament's power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada ('POGG') ... The scope of the federal aeronautics power extends to terrestrial installations that facilitate flight; it encompasses '[t]he flight and period of flight from the time the machine clears the earth to the time it returns successfully to the earth and is resting securely on the ground' ..." - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Constitutional Law - Topic 4710

Peace, order and good government clause - Particular legislative purposes - Aeronautics - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6121

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Aeronautics - General - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 and Constitutional Law - Topic 4710 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 2501

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - General - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Ultra vires - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1706 ].

Cases Noticed:

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (2010), 407 N.R. 102; 2010 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 2].

Johannesson v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), [1952] 1 S.C.R. 292, refd to. [paras. 8, 93].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 19, 103].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 19].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Foundation, [1946] A.C. 193 (Ont. P.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 27, 94].

Air Canada et al. v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 27, 152].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [paras. 27, 92].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [paras. 32, 103].

Papp v. Papp, [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1951] S.C.R. 31, refd to. [para. 33].

St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 33].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1894] A.C. 189 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), [1907] A.C. 65 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 111 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 33 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Fowler, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 213; 32 N.R. 230, refd to. [para. 34].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [paras. 34, 104].

Nykorak v. Canada (Attorney General), [1962] S.C.R. 331, refd to. [para. 35].

Gold Seal Ltd. v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1921), 62 S.C.R. 424, refd to. [para. 35].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al., [1958] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 40].

Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Fuller (Thomas) Construction Co. (1958) Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695; 30 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 40].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. MacKenzie and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 9; 42 N.R. 572, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Zelensky, Eaton (T.) Co. and Canada (Attorney General), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, refd to. [paras. 41, 104].

Reference Re Goods and Services Tax, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 445; 138 N.R. 247; 127 A.R. 161; 20 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 341 N.R. 234; 2005 SCC 65, refd to. [paras. 43, 103].

Ontario Home Builders' Association et al. v. Board of Education of York Region et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 929; 201 N.R. 81; 93 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

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. 67].

New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 751 A.P.R. 202; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 67].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 67].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. - see Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al.

Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 86; 362 N.R. 208; 241 B.C.A.C. 1; 399 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 23, refd to. [paras. 73, 92].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 89].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Chaisson (D.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 415; 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686; 355 N.R. 1; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 799 A.P.R. 199; 2006 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 89].

Quebec (Commission du salaire minimum) v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 112].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 120].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 120].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 122].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 124].

St-Louis v. Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, [1990] R.J.Q. 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Orangeville Airport Ltd. v. Caledon (Town) et al. (1976), 11 O.R.(2d) 546 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Venchiarutti v. Longhurst et al. (1992), 56 O.A.C. 302; 8 O.R.(3d) 422 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 50 O.R.(3d) 641; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 443 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Walker v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Notre Dame de Bonsecours (Parish), [1899] A.C. 367 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 160].

John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 160].

Great West Saddlery Co. v. R., [1921] 2 A.C. 91 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1929] A.C. 260 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 160].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 159].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 160].

Statutes Noticed:

Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, generally [para. 16].

Land use planning and development Act, An act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A-19.1, sect. 113 [para. 10].

Sacré-Coeur (Municipality) Bylaws, Règlement relatif aux permis et certificats, aux conditions préalables à l'émission de permis de construction, ainsi qu'à l'administration des règlements de zonage, de lotissement et de construction, Bylaw No. 209, art. 4.1, art 4.2 [para. 11, footnote 1].

Sacré-Coeur (Municipality) Bylaws, Règlement de zonage, Bylaw No. 210, generally [para. 11, footnote 2]; art. 4.1, art. 4.2 [para. 68].

Sacré-Coeur (Municipality) Bylaws, Règlement aux fins de modifier le règlements numéro 209, 210 et 211, Bylaw No. 260, generally [para. 12, footnote 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brun, Henri, Tremblay, Guy, and Brouillet, Eugénie, Droit constitutionnel (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 452 to 454 [para. 104].

Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Devinat, Mathieu, Interprétation des lois (4th Ed. 2009), pp. 406 [para. 125]; 409 [para. 126].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.) (2009 Update, Release 1), vol. 1, pp. 5-18, 5-19 [para. 184]; 15-39 ff. [para. 43]; 15-43, 15-44 [para. 104]; 22-25 [para. 154].

Issalys, Pierre, and Lemieux, Denis, L'action gouvernementale: Précis de droit des institutions administratives (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 916 [para. 175]; 923 to 926, 928 to 930 [para. 180].

Counsel:

Alain Gingras and Sébastien Rochette, for the appellant;

Mathieu Quenneville and Yvan Biron, for the respondents, Anabelle Lacombe, Jacques Picard and 3845443 Canada inc.;

Pierre J. Beauchamp, Dan Cornell and Emma Beauchamp, for the respondent, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association;

Ginette Gobeil and Claude Joyal, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Hart M. Schwartz and Josh Hunter, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Gaétan Migneault, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

R. Richard M. Butler and Jean M. Walters, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Mahmud Jamal, for the intervenor, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

No one appeared for the intervenor, the Municipality of Sacré-Coeur.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Québec, for the appellant;

Lavery, de Billy, Montréal, Québec, for the respondents, Anabelle Lacombe, Jacques Picard and 3845443 Canada inc.;

Pateras & Iezzoni, Montréal,  Québec,  for the

respondent, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association;

Attorney General of Canada, Montréal, Québec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2009, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on October 15, 2010, and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Binnie, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 68;

LeBel, J., concurring reasons in part - see paragraphs 69 to 74;

Deschamps, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 75 to 187.