Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., (2001) 275 N.R. 1 (SCC)
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | September 27, 2001 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2001), 275 N.R. 1 (SCC);2001 SCC 57;204 DLR (4th) 284;[2001] SCJ No 54 (QL);275 NR 1;AZ-50100886;[2001] CarswellQue 2013;[2001] 2 SCR 898;JE 2001-1811;22 MPLR (3d) 1 |
Saint-Romuald v. Olivier (2001), 275 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: [2001] N.R. TBEd. SE.018
Ville de Saint-Romuald (appellant) v. Claudette Olivier, Louise Bolduc, Roger Bolduc, all three carrying on business as "Les Immeubles Jancloroc enr." and 9010-4407 Québec Inc. (respondents)
(27210; 2001 SCC 57)
Indexed As: Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
September 27, 2001.
Summary:
A nightclub provided country and western entertainment. This constituted a legal non-conforming use. The nightclub replaced the singing cowboys and cowgirls with nude dancers. Business improved. Traffic around the nightclub increased. The municipality where the nightclub was situated applied under s. 227 of the Land Use Planning and Development Act (Que.) for a cease and desist order.
The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application. The municipality appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1999] Q.J. No. 215, dismissed the appeal. The municipality appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier, L'Heureux-Dubé and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Land Regulation - Topic 2804
Land use control - Exemptions - Nonconforming use - Scope of exemption -The Supreme Court of Canada, per Gonthier, J., dissenting, rejected the "category" approach in determining the scope of an exemption for "acquired rights" (nonconforming use) - The category approach suggested that the protection conferred by acquired rights extended to any use included in the by-law category to which the use exercised prior to the change in the by-law belonged - Accordingly, the implementation of one use would trigger a protection that extended to all potential uses included in the same category - This analysis missed the mark because it deviated from the factual source from which the protection of the acquired rights derived - Binnie, J., for the majority, agreed with Gonthier, J., and set out an objective factual approach that considered purpose, intensification, expansion, nature of the use, remoteness, neighbourhood effects and degree of flexibility required - See paragraphs 5, 39, 66 to 71.
Land Regulation - Topic 2804
Land use control - Exemptions - Nonconforming use - Scope of exemption -A nightclub provided country and western entertainment - This constituted a legal non-conforming use - The nightclub switched to nude dancers - Business improved - Traffic around the nightclub increased but the police did not make much of a point of added surveillance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the new entertainment still qualified as a legal non-conforming use - The switch to a different form of entertainment was within the general nightclub purpose of commercial offering of a combination of food, drink, ambiance and lawful entertainment - The substitution of nude dancers was no more remote in law than would be the substitution of karaoke singing - There was no replacement of one use by a different use - The municipality did not rely on intensification of the existing use as a disqualification - There was no serious evidence of adverse neighbourhood effects - Finally, in terms of "added" activities, nothing occurred in the nightclub's private viewing booths that did not occur in the public area - See paragraphs 1 to 47.
Cases Noticed:
Heutinck v. Oakland (Township) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 364; 42 M.P.L.R.(2d) 258 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].
Vancouver (City) v. Victoria Block Ltd. (1964), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].
Glenelg (Township) v. Davis (1992), 56 O.A.C. 382; 10 M.P.L.R.(2d) 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].
Nanaimo (City) v. Brickyard Enterprises Ltd., [1993] B.C.J. No. 992 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].
Appleby v. Erie Tobacco Co. (1910), 22 O.L.R. 533 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].
Macievich v. Anderson, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 507 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330, refd to. [para. 9].
Daly v. Vancouver (City) (1956), 5 D.L.R.(2d) 474 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].
Lorne Park, Re (1913), 30 O.L.R. 289 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 10].
Boykiw v. Development Appeal Board (Calgary) and Calgary (City) (1992), 127 A.R. 380; 20 W.A.C. 380; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 558 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Dinnick and McCallum, Re (1913), 28 O.L.R. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].
Regina Auto Court v. Regina (City) (1958), 25 W.W.R.(N.S.) 167 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. v. North Vancouver (District) (1983), 148 D.L.R.(3d) 255 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].
Toronto (City) v. Wheeler (1912), 4 D.L.R. 352 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 12].
R. v. Howard (1884), 4 O.R. 377 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Clark Brothers & Hughes Ltd., [1925] 1 D.L.R. 49 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Anjou (Ville) v. Vanier, J.E. 83-325, refd to. [para. 19].
Huot et autre v. Ange-Gardien (Municipalité) et autres, [1992] R.J.Q. 2404; 48 Q.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 59].
Soudure Mobile D. Pilon Inc. v. Larose, [1990] R.L. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 62].
1846-0832 Québec Inc. c. Chutes de la Chaudière (Municipalité régionale de comté) et autres, [1994] R.J.Q. 618; 61 Q.A.C. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 53].
Central Jewish Institute v. Toronto (City), [1948] S.C.R. 101, consd. [para. 20].
O'Sullivan Funeral Homes Ltd. v. Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1961] O.R. 413 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].
Kiss v. Dennis (Phil) Enterprises Ltd. (1974), 46 D.L.R.(3d) 196 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].
Perth (Town) v. Perth Mews Ltd. (1991), 7 M.P.L.R.(2d) 259 (Ont. Gen. Div.)z, refd to. [para. 23].
Magdalena's Rest Home Ltd. v. Etobicoke (City) (1992), 12 M.P.L.R.(2d) 316 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].
Moncton (City) v. Como (1990), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 259 A.P.R. 286 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].
Borins v. Toronto (1988), 50 R.P.R. 43 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].
382671 Ontario Ltd. v. London (City) Chief Building Official (1996), 32 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Grant (1983), 23 M.P.L.R. 89 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Cappy and Smith, [1953] 1 D.L.R. 28; 103 C.C.C. 25, consd. [para. 31].
R. v. Kelly Landscape Contractors Ltd. (1980), 13 M.P.L.R. 67 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].
Campbellton (City) v. Thompson et al. (1994), 151 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 387 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), reving. (1994), 149 N.B.R.(2d) 172; 381 A.P.R. 172 (T.D.), consd. [para. 33].
Lordon and Chatham (Town) v. Pitman and Street (1980), 33 N.B.R.(2d) 23; 80 A.P.R. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].
Val-d'Or (Ville de) v. 2550-9613 Québec Inc., [1997] R.J.Q. 2090 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 82].
East Barnet Urban District Council v. British Transport Commission, [1962] 2 Q.B. 484 (Engl.), refd to. [para. 35].
Thames Heliport HC v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (1996), 74 P. & C.R. 164 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Bridgewater (Town) v. Chukran (1966), 217 N.E.2d 726 (Mass.), refd to. [para. 35].
Conforti v. Manchester (City) (1996), 677 A.2d 147 (N.H.), refd to. [para. 35].
Belleville (Town) v. Parrillo's Inc. (1980), 416 A.2d 388 (N.J.), refd to. [para. 35].
Cape Resort Hotels Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth (1982), 431 N.E.2d 213 (Mass.), refd to. [para. 35].
Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage Foundation v. Charlottetown (City) (1998), 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 56; 497 A.P.R. 56 (P.E.I.T.D.), consd. [para. 37].
Nepean (City) v. D'Angelo et al. (1998), 81 O.T.C. 346; 49 M.P.L.R.(2d) 243 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].
Toronto v. Board of Trustees of Roman Catholic Separate Schools for Toronto, [1925] 3 D.L.R. 880 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 61].
Syndics des écoles protestantes de la cité d'Outremont c. Outremont (Cité), [1951] B.R. 676 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].
Lafontaine (Municipalité du Village) v. Ouellette, [1976] C.S. 1488, refd to. [para. 61].
Montreal (Ville) v. Bijouterie Lucien Gervais Inc., [1981] J.M. 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].
Bernard v. Beloeil (Ville de), [1990] J.E. 91-20 [para. 61].
Girard v. St. Irénée (Municipalité de), [2000] R.J.Q. 2689 (C.S.), refd to. [para. 70].
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.), consd. [para. 72].
Squillante v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hartford (City), 1997 Conn. Super. Lexis 2612 (Conn. Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 80].
Marzocco v. Albany (City) (1995), 629 N.Y.S.2d 847, consd. [para. 81].
Moncton (City) v. Steldon Enterprises Ltd. et al. (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 11; 578 A.P.R. 11 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 82].
Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc. (1976), 427 U.S. 50, refd to. [para. 82].
Renton (City) v. Playtimes Theatres Inc. (1986), 475 U.S. 41, refd to. [para. 82].
538745 Ontario Inc. v. Windsor (City) (1988), 25 O.A.C. 285; 64 O.R.(2d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].
Statutes Noticed:
Land Use Planning and Development, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A-19.1, sect. 113(3), sect. 113(18), sect. 227 [para. 52].
Saint-Romuald (Ville) Bylaws, Bylaw 273-90, sect. 9 [paras. 14, 49]; sect. 10, sect. 11 [para. 49].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Giroux, Lorne, Questions controversées en matière de droits acquis, dans Développements récents en droit municipal, 1994, pp. 148 to 152 [para. 70].
Kagan, Ika T., But I Do Not Want to Be Legal (1993), 13 M.P.L.R.(2d) 252, generally [para. 32].
McQuillin, Eugene, The Law of Municipal Corporations (3rd. Ed. 1976), vol. 8A, pp. 99 [para. 64]; 126 [para. 27].
Milner, James Bryce, Community Planning (1963), pp. 357 et seq. [para. 10].
Counsel:
Jacques Tremblay and Bertrand Gobeil, for the appellant;
François Marchand, for the respondents.
Solicitors of Record:
Pothier Delisle, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the appellant;
Daignault & Associés, Québec, Quebec, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on December 5, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on September 27, 2001, and the following reasons were filed:
Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major and Arbour, JJ, concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 47;
Gonthier, J., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 48 to 86.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2009 ABCA 65
...82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 297 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 44]. Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, refd to. [para. Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. ......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 18 22, 2019)
...Land Use Planning, Zoning By-Laws, Permitted Uses, Legal Non-Conforming Uses, Civil Procedure, Costs, Saint-Romuald (City) v. Olivier, 2001 SCC 57, Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34(9) Short Civil Decisions Haas v. Viscardi , 2019 ONC......
-
Table of cases
...(Ottawa) v Ottawa (City), [1982] 2 SCR 616, 20 MPLR 121, [1982] SCJ No 90 ............116, 282, 411, 482 Saint-Romuald (City) v Olivier, 2001 SCC 57 .........................97, 358−59, 363, 365 Saltfleet (Township) Board of Health v Knapman, [1956] SCR 877, 6 DLR (2d) 81, [1956] SCJ No 63 ......
-
Appeals and Judicial Review
...Board over the municipality’s refusal of a permit, and a court challenge to the validity of the municipality’s by-law on the basis that 21 2001 SCC 57. 22 Morgan, above note 15 at 163. LAND-USE PLANNING 436 quarries were regulated exclusively by the province. 23 Both matters ended up at the......
-
Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2009 ABCA 65
...82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 297 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 44]. Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, refd to. [para. Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. ......
-
Samborski Garden Supplies Ltd. v. MacDonald (Rural Municipality), (2015) 315 Man.R.(2d) 291 (CA)
...Clements (Rural Municipality) (2001), 158 Man.R.(2d) 250; 2001 MBQB 232, refd to. [para. 19]. Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, refd to. [para. Stavely (Town) v. Fern Brothers, Stacey and Credit Foncier Trust Co. (1987), 84 A.R. 266 (C.A.......
-
Sand, Surf and Sea Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Transportation and Public Works), 2005 NSSC 233
...Review Board et al. (2003), 213 N.S.R.(2d) 30; 667 A.P.R. 30; 2003 NSCA 30, dist. [para. 46]. Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1, dist. [para. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 5......
-
Carson Construction (1999) Ltd. v. Moncton (City), (2012) 382 N.B.R.(2d) 296 (CA)
...al. v. Breau et al. (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 372 A.P.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20]. Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, refd to. [para. C.J.G. v. L.T.G. (2011), 369 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 952 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 12, refd to. [para. 26]. ......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 18 22, 2019)
...Land Use Planning, Zoning By-Laws, Permitted Uses, Legal Non-Conforming Uses, Civil Procedure, Costs, Saint-Romuald (City) v. Olivier, 2001 SCC 57, Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34(9) Short Civil Decisions Haas v. Viscardi , 2019 ONC......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 2 March 6, 2020)
...Legal Non-Conforming Use, Burlington (City) v. Burlington Airpark Inc., 2017 ONCA 420, 138 O.R. (3d) 309, Saint-Romuald (City) v. Olivier, 2001 SCC 57 Short Civil Decisions 911 Priority Corporation v. Murray, 2020 ONCA 171 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Wrongful Term......
-
The Legal Nonconforming Rights Trilogy In Ontario
...2020 CarswellOnt 17264 (LPAT). 5. Central Jewish Institute v. Toronto (City) [1948] SCR 101. 6. Saint Romuald (City) v. Olivier [2001] 2 SCR 898. 7. Saint Romuald at para 38. 8. As will be discussed below the term "noncomplying" as opposed to nonconforming, is a land use planning term of ar......
-
Table of cases
...(Ottawa) v Ottawa (City), [1982] 2 SCR 616, 20 MPLR 121, [1982] SCJ No 90 ............116, 282, 411, 482 Saint-Romuald (City) v Olivier, 2001 SCC 57 .........................97, 358−59, 363, 365 Saltfleet (Township) Board of Health v Knapman, [1956] SCR 877, 6 DLR (2d) 81, [1956] SCJ No 63 ......
-
Appeals and Judicial Review
...Board over the municipality’s refusal of a permit, and a court challenge to the validity of the municipality’s by-law on the basis that 21 2001 SCC 57. 22 Morgan, above note 15 at 163. LAND-USE PLANNING 436 quarries were regulated exclusively by the province. 23 Both matters ended up at the......
-
Some Leading Cases
...untrammeled in the absence of any by-law, could only . . . be regulated. This is not what [the Cities and Towns Act ] authorizes.” 56 53 2001 SCC 57. 54 [1952] 1 SCR 222 [ Sun Oil ]. 55 (1979), 25 NR 108 (SCC). See also MacArthur v Charlottetown (City) , 2005 PESCTD 37. 56 Above note 54 at ......
-
Glossary
...(Quebec term) non-conforming use; see Land Use Planning and Development Act , CQLR c A-19.1, s 113; see Saint-Romuald (City) v Olivier , 2001 SCC 57 Adaptation: changes made to respond to external circumstances, for example, climate change Adaptive reuse: change in use of an older building,......