Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., (2005) 340 N.R. 305 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 340 N.R. 305 (SCC);2005 SCC 62

Montreal v. 2952-1366 Que. (2005), 340 N.R. 305 (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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. NO.011

City of Montreal (appellant) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc. (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervenor)

(29413; 2005 SCC 62; 2005 CSC 62)

Indexed As: Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.

November 3, 2005.

Summary:

A numbered company operated a club fea­turing female dancers in a commer­cial zone of downtown Montreal, in a build­ing front­ing Ste-Catherine Street. To attract cus­tomers and compete with a similar estab­lishment located nearby, the numbered com­pany set up, in the main entrance to its club, a loudspeaker that amplified the music and commentary accompanying the show under way inside so that passers-by would hear them. The numbered company was charged with producing noise that could be heard outside using sound equipment, in violation of arts. 9(1) and 11 of a city bylaw (i.e., the Montreal City Bylaw Concerning Noise). The numbered company, when summoned be­fore the Muni­cipal Court, argued that these articles of the bylaw were invalid and also violated the right to freedom of expression contrary to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Municipal Court in Montreal, in a de­cision reported [1999] Q.J. No. 2890, con­victed the numbered company. The court ruled that the noise emitted by the numbered company's establishment constituted a nui­sance, that the city council had the power to define and prohibit nuisances under art. 520(72) of the Charter of the City of Mon­treal, and that neither the purpose nor the effect of the bylaw was to restrict free­dom of expression. The numbered company ap­pealed.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2000] Q.J. No. 7289, quashed the conviction on the basis that the impugned provisions infringed the numbered com­pany's freedom of expression and the in­fringement could not be justified. The City of Montreal appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Cumberland, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [2002] R.J.Q. 2986, dismissed the appeal. The City of Montreal appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal, holding that the bylaw was constitutional. The court held that art. 9(1) was validly adopted by the city pursuant to its regulatory powers. Fur­ther, although the provision limited the freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Ca­nadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms, the limit was reasonable and could be jus­tified within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - General principles - Freedom of express­ion - Scope of - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1806

Freedom of speech or expression - General principles - Public forum - What consti­tutes - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Government property - The Su­preme Court of Canada offered its views on the issue of freedom of expression on public prop­erty - The court stated that s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not attracted by the mere fact of government ownership of the place in question - There must be a further en­quiry - The court stated that "expressive activity should be excluded from the pro­tective scope of s. 2(b) only if its method or location clearly undermines the values that underlie the guarantee. Violent expres­sion, which falls outside the scope of s. 2(b) by reason of its method, provides a useful analogy. Violent expression may be a means of political expression and may serve to enhance the self-fulfilment of the perpetrator. However, it is not protected by s. 2(b) because viol­ent means and methods un­dermine the values that s. 2(b) seeks to protect ... Simi­larly, in determining what public spaces fall outside s. 2(b) protec­tion, we must ask whether free expression in a given place undermines the values underlying s. 2(b)" - See paragraphs 71 and 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Government property - The Su­preme Court of Canada proposed a test for the application of s. 2(b) of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the free­dom of expression provision) to public prop­erty - The onus of satisfying the test rested on the claimant - "The basic ques­tion with respect to expres­sion on govern­ment-owned property is whether the place is a public place where one would expect constitutional protection for free expression on the basis that ex­pression in that place does not conflict with the pur­poses which s. 2(b) is intended to serve, namely (1) democratic discourse, (2) truth finding and (3) self-fulfilment. To answer this ques­tion, the following factors should be con­sid­ered: (a) the his­torical or actual function of the place; and (b) whether other aspects of the place suggest that expression within it would undermine the values underlying free expression" - See paragraphs 73 to 81.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Government property - A num­bered company, which operated a club fea­turing female dancers in downtown Mon­treal was convicted of producing noise that could be heard outside using sound equip­ment, in violation of art. 9(1) of a city bylaw concerning noise - The convic­tion was quashed on appeal - The City of Mon­treal appealed, raising a freedom of expres­sion issue (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the bylaw infringed s. 2(b) - The noise emitted by the loud­speaker from inside the club had express­ive content establishing a prima facie case for s. 2(b) protection - The emission of noise onto a public street was protected by s. 2(b) (i.e., viewed from the perspective of locus, the expression fell within the public domain) - Although the pur­pose of the bylaw was benign, the effect was to limit expression, and there­fore a breach of s. 2(b) was made out - The breach, how­ever, was justifiable under s. 1 - See para­graphs 56 to 85.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Noise bylaws - A numbered com­pany operated a club featuring female dancers in a commercial zone of down­town Montreal, in a building fronting Ste-Catherine Street - To attract customers and compete with a similar establishment lo­cated nearby, the numbered company set up, in the main entrance to its club, a loudspeaker that amplified the music and com­mentary ac­companying the show under way inside so that passers-by would hear them - The numbered company was con­vict­ed of producing noise that could be heard out­side using sound equipment, in violation of art. 9(1) of a city bylaw con­cern­ing noise - The conviction was quash­ed on appeal - The City of Montreal ap­pealed - The Supreme Court of Canada al­lowed the appeal - The court held that art. 9(1) was validly adopted by the city pursu­ant to its regulatory powers - Further, al­though the provision limited the freedom of express­ion guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the limit was reasonable and could be jus­ti­fied within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 1 to 101.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Noise bylaws - A numbered com­pany, which operated a club featuring female dancers in downtown Montreal was con­victed of producing noise that could be heard outside using sound equipment, in violation of art. 9(1) of a city bylaw con­cern­ing noise - The conviction was quash­ed on appeal - The City of Montreal ap­pealed, raising a freedom of expression issue (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, hold­ing that the bylaw infringed s. 2(b) - The court stated that "the electronically amplified noise at issue here encouraged passers-by to engage in the leisure activity of attend­ing one of the performances held at the club. Generally speaking, engaging in law­ful leisure activities promotes such values as individual self-fulfilment and human flourishing. The disputed value of particu­lar expressions of self-fulfilment, like exotic dancing, does not negate this gen­eral proposition ... It follows that the bylaw has the effect of restricting express­ion which promotes one of the values un­der­lying s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter" - See paragraph 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Noise bylaws - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1863

Freedom of speech or expression - Denial of - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Ap­plication - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1490

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Control of noise - The City of Montreal enacted a Bylaw Concerning Noise, including art. 9(1), which specifi­cally prohibited noise that could be heard outside coming from sound equipment, whether the equipment was inside or out­side the building - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that although the bylaw appeared clear and unambiguous, it was in fact ambiguous - However, taking the word­ing of the provision into account together with its purpose and its context, the court resolved the ambiguity and deter­mined the scope of the bylaw (i.e., the scope being to control noises that consti­tuted a nuisance) - Since the city had the power to define and prohibit nuisances under arts. 517 and 520(72) of its charter, the city therefore had the power to adopt the bylaw - The bylaw in this case did not exceed the city's regulatory power and in no way constituted an unreasonable or im­proper exercise of that power - The bylaw was therefore valid - See paragraphs 9 to 55.

Municipal Law - Topic 1490

Powers of municipalities - Particular pow­ers - Control of noise - The City of Mon­treal enacted a Bylaw Concerning Noise, including art. 9(1), which specifi­cally prohibited noise that could be heard out­side coming from sound equipment, wheth­er the equipment was inside or out­side the building - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the course of a contextual analysis to arrive at the proper interpreta­tion of s. 9(1), considered the history of the bylaw, the purpose of the bylaw and the bylaw it­self - The court stated that the regulation of noise fell within a municipal govern­ment's jurisdiction to control nui­sances, a power the City of Montreal had possessed since before Confederation and had been exercising since 1937 when the city passed its first noise bylaw - The court stated that the purpose of the bylaw was to protect against noise pollution - From the histori­cal and purposive analysis, the court was able to determine that the lawmakers' pur­pose was to control disruptive noises that interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of the urban environment (i.e., noises that stood out over the environmental noise) - See paragraphs 18 to 35.

Municipal Law - Topic 1490

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Control of noise - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1682

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of powers - Scope of powers of judicial review - The Supreme Court of Can­ada noted that the intervention by courts in the exercise of regulatory powers by municipalities has been marked by great deference - Only the exercise of power in bad faith or for improper or unreasonable purposes would justify judicial review - See paragraph 41.

Municipal Law - Topic 3726

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - General - The Supreme Court of Canada re­iterated that there was only one principle or approach to statutory interpretation, namely that the words of an Act were to be read in their entire context and in their gram­matical and ordinary sense harmoni­ously with the scheme of the Act, the ob­ject of the Act and the intention of Parlia­ment - The court stated that this meant that statutory interpretation could not be found­ed on the wording of the legislation alone -The court stated further that words that appeared clear and unam­biguous could in fact prove to be ambigu­ous once placed in their context - The possibility of the con­text revealing a latent ambiguity such as this was a logical result of the modern approach to interpretation - The fact that a municipal bylaw was in issue rather than a statute did not alter the approach to be fol­lowed in applying the modern principles of interpretation - See paragraphs 9 and 10.

Municipal Law - Topic 3728

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Ordinary meaning of words - [See second Muni­cipal Law - Topic 1490 and Munici­pal Law - Topic 3726 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3731

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Purpose - [See second Municipal Law - Topic 1490 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3731.1

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - History - [See second Municipal Law - Topic 1490 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3767

Bylaws - Particular bylaws - Noise control bylaw - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9 and first and second Municipal Law - Topic 1490 ].

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordi­nary meaning of words - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3726 ].

Statutes - Topic 1414

Interpretation - Construction where mean­ing is not plain - General principles - Ambiguity - General - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3726 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Inter­pretation by context (incl. modern rule) - General principles - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3726 ].

Words and Phrases

Noise - The Supreme Court of Canada de­ter­mined the meaning of the word "noise" in art. 9 of the City of Montreal Bylaw Concerning Noise, R.B.C.M. 1994, c. B-3 - See paragraphs 15 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 9, 115].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [paras. 9, 111].

Cheema v. Ross et al. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 92; 5 W.A.C. 92; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Luciano (1986), 19 O.A.C. 178; 34 M.P.L.R. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Haddan - see R. v. Hadden and Sand.

R. v. Hadden and Sand, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 661 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. [1984] 1 W.W.R. 384 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [paras. 15, 123].

R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

McBratney v. McBratney (1919), 59 S.C.R. 550, refd to. [para. 23].

Canadian Fishing Co. v. Smith, [1962] S.C.R. 294, refd to. [para. 23].

Sidmay Ltd. v. Wehttam Investments Ltd., [1968] S.C.R. 828, refd to. [para. 23].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 23].

Demers v. Saint-Laurent (Ville), [1997] R.J.Q. 1892 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, refd to. [paras. 41, 158].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 41].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 41, 149].

Montreal (City) v. Beauvais (1909), 42 S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 41].

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, refd to. [para. 41].

Juneau v. Québec (Ville) et autres, [1991] R.J.Q. 2781; 42 Q.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368; 58 N.R. 339, refd to. [paras. 41, 158].

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. [paras. 42, 152].

Laval (Ville) v. Prince, [1996] Q.J. No. 58 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 132].

Sablières Laurentiennes Ltée v. Ste-Adèle (Ville), [1989] R.L. 486 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 47, 152].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 51, 159].

Morrison v. Kingston (1937), 69 C.C.C. 251 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

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. 52].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 56].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 58].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 61, 172].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 66].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 1; 69 W.A.C. 1; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 88, 172].

Quebec v. Carrières Ste-Thérèse ltée, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 831; 59 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 120].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. L'Heureux, [1996] Q.J. No. 2135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 126].

Anctil v. Cour municipale de La Pocatière, [1973] C.S. 238 (Que.), refd to. [para. 128].

Baie-Comeau (Ville) v. Bar le Broadway, 1999 CarswellQue 1472, refd to. [para. 135].

Beloeil (Ville) v. Pergola 2000, [2003] Q.J. No. 12782 (Mun. Ct.), refd to. [para. 136].

Nutrichef Ltée v. Brossard (Ville), J.E. 88-813 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 137].

Sévigny v. Alimentation G.F. Robin inc., [1999] R.R.A. 702, refd to. [para. 137].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 149].

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Vic­toria (City) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 919; 263 N.R. 1; 144 B.C.A.C. 203; 236 W.A.C. 203; 2000 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 149].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowhip of South­ern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 149].

Kirkland (Ville) v. Phares (1993), 19 M.P.L.R.(2d) 314 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 152].

Sambault v. Mercier (Ville), [1983] C.S. 147 (Que.), refd to. [para. 152].

Beach v. Perkins (Municipality), [1975] C.S. 85 (Que.), refd to. [para. 152].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 170].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 173].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [para. 2].

Charter of the City of Montreal, S.Q. 1959-60, c. 102, art. 516, art. 517(l), art. 520(72) [para. 54].

Interpretation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. I-16, sect. 41.1 [para. 27].

Montreal (City) Bylaws, Bylaw Concern­ing Noise, art. 2 [para. 43]; art. 9(1), art. 11 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legis­lation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 24 [para. 10]; 277 [para. 30]; 279 [para. 25]; 280 [para. 15]; 281 [para. 25].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [paras. 9, 114].

Giroux, Lorne, Retour sur les compétences municipales en matière de nuisance, in Développements récents en droit de l'environment (1999), pp. 303 [para. 18]; 304, 305 [para. 156]; 316 [para. 47]; 328, 329, 330 [para. 137].

L'Heureux, Jacques, Droit municipal qué­bécois (1984), t. 2, p. 723 [para. 151].

Langlois, Denis, Le bruit et la fureur: les réglementations municipale et provinciale en matière de bruit, in Développements récents en droit municipal (1992), p. 163 [para. 18].

Moon, Richard, The Constitutional Protec­tion of Freedom of Expression (2000), p. 148 et seq. [para. 78].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), p. 113 [para. 163].

Counsel:

Serge Barrière, for the appellant;

No one appeared for the respondent;

Daniel Paquin, as amicus curiae;

Shaun Nakatsuru, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Charest, Séguin, Caron, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Beauchemin, Paquin, Jobin, Brisson & Philpot, Montréal, Quebec, appointed by the Court as amicus curiae;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Char­ron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was rendered on November 3, 2005, when the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Deschamps, J. (Bastarache, LeBel, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 101;

Binnie, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 102 to 177.