The adoption by RCMs of an interim control by-law on farming practices in provincial agricultural zones: no need to wait for new governmental directions (Available in French only)

December 1, 2001

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

Written by

Daniel Bouchard
Partner, Lawyer

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

July 26, 2024

A tenderer’s failure to comply with the preliminary complaint process as part of a municipality’s public call for tenders leads to a fin de non-recevoir

Introduction On June 14, 2024, the Superior Court of Québec issued a decision1 interpreting section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec, which came into force in 2019. This provision gives a person interested in participating in the awarding process the opportunity to file a preliminary complaint about a requirement in the tender documents that they believe does not ensure the honest and fair treatment of tenderers. To our knowledge, this is the first time a court has considered the impact on a claim for damages for loss of profits2 when an unsuccessful tenderer fails to comply with this relatively new provision The Superior Court concluded that a tenderer’s failure to submit a complaint in a timely manner should be considered as [translation] “a form of fin de non-recevoir, or at the very least, a break in the chain of causation between the alleged fault and the damages claimed” (paragraph 40). Facts The dispute at hand pitted Transport Martin Forget Inc. (“Transport Forget”) against the Municipality of Saint-Alexis (the “Municipality”). On May 6, 2019, the Municipality issued a call for tenders for a snow clearing and salting contract. Transport Forget submitted the lowest bid, which was $150,000 below that of the winning tenderer. Transport Forget was excluded from the call for tenders given its failure to comply with the tender specifications requiring it to provide a Régie du bâtiment du Québec (“RBQ”) licence number, together with an attestation that its licence was in good standing. Further to the Municipality’s refusal to award the contract to Transport Forget, it claimed $300,000 in damages for alleged loss of profits. Transport Forget believed that its tender was compliant, that the RBQ licence requirement imposed by the Municipality was frivolous and unreasonable, that the Municipality failed to uphold the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and that the complaint process provided for in section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec did not deprive it of its rights. As for the Municipality, it considered the irregularity in Transport Forget’s tender to be major and Transport Forget’s failure to comply with the complaint process concerning this requirement—both reasonable and in the public interest—was fatal to its legal action. The evidence showed that the RBQ licence number provided in Transport Forget’s tender was invalid and that Transport Forget deliberately chose not to renew said licence before submitting its tender, as it was unsure as to whether it would win the bidding process and wished to avoid needlessly paying the $1,000 annual fee required for the licence renewal. Applicable principles In order to determine the outcome of this dispute, the Court analyzed the case based on the decision in Tapitec,3 a landmark ruling in tendering matters. It reiterated the Court’s view that the decisive factor in determining whether an irregularity is minor or major is the equal treatment of tenderers. It also pointed out that municipalities can set out conditions aimed at limiting the number of tenderers, provided that this is done for an important and legitimate purpose. As for section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec, the Court viewed it as a mechanism for monitoring all contracts awarded by public bodies which is designed to establish a process to ensure compliance with the principles of integrity needed to protect the public interest. According to the Court, the legislator’s intention is also to protect small municipalities such as the one in question (with a population of approximately 1,500) from potential legal action following the opening of tenders by ensuring that issues concerning the principle of equal treatment of tenderers are resolved prior to the tendering process. Tenderers that fail to comply with this requirement will not be entitled to claim damages for loss of profits, as in this case, except where there has been fraud or blatant bad faith, as in cases of collusion. The purpose of the provision in question is to prevent a tenderer that is aware of the requirements set out in the tender documents from contesting such requirements after the fact. Decision The Court found that the requirement to hold an RBQ licence number was a condition intended to limit the number of tenderers, which the Municipality was entitled to do. Although the Court recognized that there is no correlation between being able to perform snow clearing operations and holding an RBQ licence, it accepted the evidence that this condition was an appropriate and quick way for the Municipality to ascertain the credibility and organizational skills of tenderers, which was a important and legitimate objective. The Court therefore concluded that this requirement of the tender specifications was neither frivolous nor arbitrary. The Court considered the irregularity in Transport Forget’s tender to be major. Although the obligation to hold a valid RBQ licence is neither a requirement of public policy nor a substantive requirement, it is intended precisely to proscribe the lack of seriousness shown by Transport Forget when it opted not to pay the renewal fees for its RBQ licence before submitting its tender. The Municipality exercised its administrative discretion in a reasonable manner and ensured that all tenderers were treated equally. The Court found that the Municipality was right to reject Transport Forget’s tender. Although the Court dismissed the claim, it did nevertheless consider section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec. In the Court’s view, Transport Forget could have lodged a preliminary complaint about the validity of the condition imposed by the Municipality to hold an RBQ licence. Doing so would have given the Municipality the opportunity to amend its call for tenders before the opening of tenders. Transport Forget’s failure to do this rendered its claim for damages inadmissible. Commentary Tenderers for public calls for tenders issued by a municipality must be aware of section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec4 and understand how to apply it in a timely manner. As demonstrated by the Superior Court’s interpretation of this section in the judgment in question, an unsuccessful tenderer that has not complied with the complaint process set out in said section and who intends to sue for damages for an alleged loss of profits could have their claim turned down on grounds of a fin de non-recevoir. Transport Martin Forget Inc. c. Municipalité de Saint-Alexis, 2024 QCCS 2208 We came across the decision in Sintra inc. c. Municipalité de Noyan, 2019 QCCS 4293 (CanLII), which also deals with this provision, but in the context of an application for an interim injunction from the lowest tenderer attempting to prevent the awarding of the contract to a third party: the Court dismissed the claim, in particular because the tenderer had not lodged a complaint about the process provided for the awarding of the contract, in accordance with section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec, and concluded that the prima facie case requirement had not been met. Tapitec c. Ville de Blainville 2017 QCCA 317 We would also like to draw your attention to section 573.3.1.4 of the Cities and Towns Act, which is identical to section 938.1.2.2 of the Municipal Code of Québec. We have not found any decisions interpreting this section, so we urge tenderers to be cautious and comply with the complaint process applicable to calls for tenders issued by cities and towns, to avoid having their claim turned down on grounds of a fin de non-recevoir.

Read more
May 6, 2024

New provisions governing disguised expropriation in the Act respecting land use planning and development: Impact of the declaratory effect and transitional provisions

On December 6, 2023, an amendment to the Act to amend the Act respecting municipal taxation and other legislative provisions1(“Bill 39”)was adopted during a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 39 in parliamentary committee. Two days later, the Bill received assent. This amendment introduced new provisions to circumscribe the circumstances in which a municipality’s use of one of its powers may be considered disguised expropriation,2 particularly when the power exercised is provided for in the Act respecting land use planning and development3 (the “Act”). Legislative framework for disguised expropriation Certain provisions have been codified in the new section 245 of the Act, in line with case law on disguised expropriation.4 The Act now expressly states that a planning by-law may restrict the exercise of a right of ownership, without giving rise to an indemnity, unless the restrictions are so severe as to prevent any reasonable use of an immovable.5 It has now been established by law that a municipality’s act affecting the use of an immovable creates no obligation to indemnify under article 952 of the Civil Code of Québec6 (“C.C.Q.”). To enable municipalities to exercise their role in protecting the environment, as well as the health and safety of people and property, a presumption is now applied in their favour to the effect that the infringement of a right of ownership is justified solely insofar as it results from an act that meets one of the conditions listed in paragraph 3 of section 245 of the Act. The presumption thus applies when the expropriator demonstrates that the purpose of the act is to: protect wetlands and bodies of water; protect another environment of high ecological value; or that the act is necessary to ensure human health or safety or the safety of property.7 Declaratory effect A noteworthy change is that the new section 245 of the Act is declaratory, meaning that it has a retroactive effect. Generally, the principle of interpretation is that new laws have no retroactive effect, as set out in the Interpretation Act.8 The intention behind making section 245 of the Act declaratory was to give the provision retroactive effect from the date that it came into force. It is important to note that this declaratory effect is absolute, such that the courts are bound to comply with it, as if the section had always existed and had such effect. It cannot therefore be associated with the general rule that legislation is prospective, meaning that it only has an effect in the future.9 In enacting declaratory legislation, the legislature assumes the role of a court and dictates the interpretation of its own law, such that it becomes akin to binding precedents10. As a result, such legislation may overrule a court decision in the same way that a Supreme Court decision would take precedence over a previous line of lower court judgments on a given question of law.11 That being said, the declaratory effect of the Act’s new section 245 will only apply to disputes instituted since its coming into force and before December 8, 2023, as well as to cases taken under advisement by a trial judge, and cases that are pending and under advisement before the Court of Appeal of Quebec. It will therefore not be possible to apply to have a judgment that has acquired the effect of res judicata amended by invoking this declaratory effect. Incidentally, as recently as January 2024, the Court of Appeal had decided to allow a municipality appealing a decision raising issues related to the content of Bill 39, to add further arguments to the existing appeal brief.12 According to the appellant municipality, the “new law” would have the effect of sealing the fate of the case in question.13 On June 18, 2024, following its hearing of this same case on the merits, the Court of Appeal found that “[TRANSLATION] it was not able, on the basis of the case on appeal as constituted, to render an abstract decision on an issue that was not truly debated at trial.”14 Consequently, the Court of Appeal overturned the findings at trial for the sole purpose of allowing the trial judge to decide the case in light of the parameters set by new section 245.15 It would therefore seem that the referral of appeal cases back to the trial stage is the route preferred by the Court of Appeal in accordance with the declaratory effect of the new legislative provisions. Various other amendments Other provisions also include amendments related to the conditions described above. Technically speaking, the provisions of Bill 39 relating to expropriation came into force as soon as it received assent. However, the transitional provisions created certain exceptions. Firstly, as of June 8, 2024,16 municipalities will be required to send a notice to the owner of an immovable concerned by an act referred to in one of the three presumptions. Such notice must be sent within three months of the date of entry into force of the act.17 Secondly, the owner of an immovable who has suffered an infringement of their right of ownership that prevents all reasonable use of the immovable may now bring a proceeding before the Superior Court for the payment of an indemnity under article 952 of the C.C.Q. Such a proceeding is prescribed three years after the date of coming into force of the act. This period began to run on December 8, 2023, for regulations in force on that date, without extending periods that had already begun to run. Finally, it is important to note that it is now possible for a municipality that has been found guilty of disguised expropriation to acquire the immovable concerned. The municipality can therefore decide to acquire the immovable or put a stop to the infringement of the right of ownership.18 Under the transitional provisions, in any dispute where the judge has not taken the matter under advisement by December 7, 2023, the Court must consider these rules concerning the possibility for a municipality to put an stop to an infringement of the right of ownership.19 Conclusion The sections added to the Act under Bill 39 provide a framework for interpreting and applying the principle of disguised expropriation. The declaratory effect was clearly intended to accommodate municipal authorities wishing to benefit from the principles of this new legislation in pending cases. B. 39, 1st Sess., 43rd Legis., Quebec, 2023. The Ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’Habitation opted instead for the term “expropriation de fait” (de facto expropriation) in the Muni-Express on the adoption of Bill 39 (see the Act to amend the Act respecting municipal taxation and other legislative provisions – Muni-Express (gouv.qc.ca)) CQLR, c. A-19.1. Municipalité de Saint-Colomban c. Boutique de golf Gilles Gareau inc., 2019 QCCA 1402; Dupras c. Ville de Mascouche, 2022 QCCA 350. Minister’s comments in support of the amendments to section 245 of the Act. CCQ-1991. New section 245, para. 3 of the Act. CQLR, c. I-16, s. 50 Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd., 2013 SCC 46. Id., para. 27. Id. Ville de Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville c. Sommet Prestige Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 25, para. 5. Id., para. 1. Ville de Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville c. Sommet Prestige Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 804, para. 30. Id., paras. 30 and 31. Bill 39, section 87, para. 1. New section 245.1 of the Act. New section 245.3 of the Act. Bill 39, section 87, para. 2.

Read more
May 23, 2018

No municipal tax reductions for mining companies

What is a mine’s equipment? What does it include? What is considered an access road to a mining operation? These are, you might think, simple, perhaps even banal questions. Think again: the answer to these questions represents the difference between millions of dollars in property taxes pouring into the coffers of municipalities and mining companies across Québec holding on to them. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (Immovable Property Division) (hereinafter “TAQ”) was confronted by these questions as part of an appeal lodged by Bloom Lake General Partner Limited against the City of Fermont1. The underlying principle is simple: municipal taxation is essentially applied as a function of the values entered on the property assessment roll. It is the responsibility of the assessor2 to determine the composition of each assessment unit, what immovables are to be entered on the property assessment role and what their value is. The law3 provides that certain immovables are not to be entered on the role. Accordingly, their value has no impact on the taxes that can be collected by municipalities. Among the immovables excluded from the role: “galleries, shafts, excavations, tunnels the equipment of underground or open mines”4 “an access road to forest or mining operations”5. Hence the importance of the questions asked above. With respect to a mine’s equipment, Bloom Lake argued that the equipment of a mine should be taken to refer to all the steps in the operation of a mine, from the extraction of the ore to its marketing and including its processing. Instead, the TAQ adopted a more limited interpretation of the concept of mine equipment that included only the equipment used to extract the ore. As for the concept of an access road to a mining operation, Bloom Lake claimed that it included all the roads located within the mining operation, i.e. all the roads used by vehicles in the mining operation. Again here, the claim was not accepted by the TAQ, which instead circumscribed this concept to the road linking the public road to the entry gate of the mining operation. If the TAQ had accepted the Bloom Lake interpretation, it could have had a serious financial impact for mining companies, which would have had a large part of their immovables that are included in their mining operation excluded from the assessment role.6 2018 QCTAQ 04461 Also called Municipal Body Responsible for Assessment” or “MBRA”, sections 19 ff. of the Act respecting municipal taxation. Act respecting municipal taxation (AMT), ss. 63 to 68. In this case, the relevant paragraphs are 65 para 1 (4) and 65 para 1 (8). Section 65 para 1 (4) AMT. Section 65 para1 (8) AMT. It should however be noted that at the time of this writing, the time period for appealing the TAQ decision had not yet expired.

Read more
January 12, 2018

Bill 162: An Act to amend the Building Act and other legislative provisions mainly to give effect to certain Charbonneau Commission recommendations

Tabled on December 1, 2017 by Lise Thériault, the Minister responsible for Consumer Protection and Housing, the main purpose of Bill 162 is to give effect to certain recommendations contained in the final report of the Commission of inquiry on the awarding and management of public contracts in the construction industry. Amendments to the Building Act Firstly, the Bill amends the definition of "officer" contained in the Building Act so as to include any shareholder of a partnership or corporation holding 10% or more of the voting rights attached to its shares, particularly for purposes of the assessment by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec (the "Board") of an undertaking’s integrity. The notion of "guarantor" is added to the Building Act to describe a natural person who, by applying for a licence on behalf of a partnership or legal person, or by holding such a licence himself or herself, becomes responsible for managing the activities for which the licence is being issued. In addition, the Board's powers of inquiry, verification and inspection are expanded. Finally, the Act provides for immunity from civil proceedings and protection from reprisals for any person who communicates information in good faith to the Board regarding any act or omission which he or she believes constitutes a violation or offence under the Building Act. Certain penal provisions have also been added for the purpose of sanctioning any person who takes reprisals in response to the disclosure of such information, or who submits false or misleading information to the Board. Additions to the Building Act Secondly, a conviction for certain offences, which already previously warranted restricted access to public contracts, will now lead to a refusal by the Board to issue a licence, and may result in the cancellation or suspension of an existing licence. Furthermore, where such a conviction leads to a person's imprisonment pursuant to a sentence, a licence can only be issued to the person once five years have passed following the end of the said term of imprisonment. The Board will be required to cancel a licence where the licence holder, or any officer of an undertaking holding a licence, is convicted of an offence or any indictable offence referred to in the Building Act, where the said person was already convicted of such an offence or indictable offence within the five preceding years. The Board is given new grounds pertaining to the integrity of undertakings to refuse to issue, suspend or cancel a licence, particularly where the corporate structure of the entity enables it to evade the application of the Building Act. In this regard, the Board is obliged, by regulation, to require any contractor to provide either a performance bond or security for wages, materials and services for the purpose of ensuring construction work continues, or the payment of creditors, in the event of the cancellation or suspension (in certain cases) of a licence. Lastly, a new penal offence for the use of "prête-noms" (nominees) is being added, and the prescription period in penal matters is being extended from one year to three years from the date on which the prosecutor had knowledge of the offence, without however exceeding seven years from the date of commission of the offence. Conclusion This Bill, which notably implements four recommendations of the Charbonneau Commission, will be worth watching when parliamentary proceedings resume in the National Assembly on February 6, 2018.

Read more