Québec water case law 21: The Court of Appeal upholds the validity of municipal by-laws for riparian zone protection
Similar pages:
- Blog of law articles: Québec water case law 10: Municipal responsibility for disgorgement of septic tanks
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 9: Validity of a municipal regulation protecting riparian areas
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 8: Demolition of a new encroachement in the St Lawrence River riparian zone
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 7: Class action for contamination of municipal groundwater sources
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 20: Municipal liability further to floods
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 6: Municipal responsibility for watercourse maintenance
In Wallot v. Ville de Québec (in French), the Court of Appeal of Québec sits on appeal of a Superior Court judgement discussed in a previous post where the facts were thus summarised:
- Lake St. Charles is the source of 50% of the drinking water provided by the defendant municipality Québec City, serving close to 300 000 persons;
- During the summers of 2006 and 2007, toxic cyanobacteria proliferate in the Lake due to phosphate inputs from fertiliser run-offs, septic tank leakage, etc;
- Municipal by-laws are adopted by Québec City in June 2008 to counter this phenomenon by imposing the naturalisation and reforestation of heavily modified riparian areas on a 10 to 15 meters strip of land around the Lake;
- The plaintiffs and appellants are owners of riparian properties around Lake St. Charles. They contest the validity of the by-laws to avoid being forced to return part of their properties to a more natural state.
The Superior Court rejects the plaintiffs’ arguments and concludes that the municipality made reasonable use of its regulatory powers.
The appeal raises the following questions:
1 - Did the Superior Court err in concluding that the defendant municipality could adopt, based on section 19 of the Municipal Powers Act (MPA), the by-laws attacked?
2 - If the defendant municipality had the regulatory power to adopt the by-laws, did the Superior Court err in concluding that the defendant municipality did not exceed the power conferred by the MPA in doing so?
To answer the first question, the Court of Appeal establishes the breadth of the municipal regulatory power under sections 4.4 and 19 MPA by reference to the right to a healthy environment at section 19.2 of the Environment Quality Act, to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains, to the Sustainable Development Act, and to the Act to affirm the Collective Nature of Water Resources and Provide for Increased Water Resource Protection. In this legislative context and given section 2 MPA, the Court concludes that the attacked municipal by-laws correspond to the regulatory powers conferred by the MPA.
With respect to the second question, the Court of Appeal examines whether the municipal by-laws impose constraints on the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their properties that are prohibitive enough to constitute disguised expropriation. This is mostly a factual question and the Superior Court’s decision can only be quashed if it contains a manifest and dominant mistake, which is not the case. The by-laws are not equivalent to an absolute negation of the plaintiffs’ property rights or a positive confiscation of the properties. The plaintiffs’ rights over their properties remain exclusive. The plaintiffs can continue enjoying their property for residential purposes. Hence, the Court rejects the appeal.
- Lake St. Charles is the source of 50% of the drinking water provided by the defendant municipality Québec City, serving close to 300 000 persons;
- During the summers of 2006 and 2007, toxic cyanobacteria proliferate in the Lake due to phosphate inputs from fertiliser run-offs, septic tank leakage, etc;
- Municipal by-laws are adopted by Québec City in June 2008 to counter this phenomenon by imposing the naturalisation and reforestation of heavily modified riparian areas on a 10 to 15 meters strip of land around the Lake;
- The plaintiffs and appellants are owners of riparian properties around Lake St. Charles. They contest the validity of the by-laws to avoid being forced to return part of their properties to a more natural state.
The Superior Court rejects the plaintiffs’ arguments and concludes that the municipality made reasonable use of its regulatory powers.
The appeal raises the following questions:
1 - Did the Superior Court err in concluding that the defendant municipality could adopt, based on section 19 of the Municipal Powers Act (MPA), the by-laws attacked?
2 - If the defendant municipality had the regulatory power to adopt the by-laws, did the Superior Court err in concluding that the defendant municipality did not exceed the power conferred by the MPA in doing so?
To answer the first question, the Court of Appeal establishes the breadth of the municipal regulatory power under sections 4.4 and 19 MPA by reference to the right to a healthy environment at section 19.2 of the Environment Quality Act, to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains, to the Sustainable Development Act, and to the Act to affirm the Collective Nature of Water Resources and Provide for Increased Water Resource Protection. In this legislative context and given section 2 MPA, the Court concludes that the attacked municipal by-laws correspond to the regulatory powers conferred by the MPA.
With respect to the second question, the Court of Appeal examines whether the municipal by-laws impose constraints on the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their properties that are prohibitive enough to constitute disguised expropriation. This is mostly a factual question and the Superior Court’s decision can only be quashed if it contains a manifest and dominant mistake, which is not the case. The by-laws are not equivalent to an absolute negation of the plaintiffs’ property rights or a positive confiscation of the properties. The plaintiffs’ rights over their properties remain exclusive. The plaintiffs can continue enjoying their property for residential purposes. Hence, the Court rejects the appeal.
More related web entries for - Québec water case law 21: The Court of Appeal upholds the validity of municipal by-laws for riparian zone protection:
- undefined
- Water case law in Québec 20: Municipal liability further to floods
- Water case law in Québec 6: Municipal responsibility for watercourse maintenance
- Water case law in Québec 5: is there an increase in the enforcement of fish habitat protection?
- Québec water case law 19: interpreting section 56 of the Municipal Powers Act
- Water case law in Québec 4: defining fish habitat
- Québec water case law 18: Authorisation denied for a class action further to rains and sewer backflow
- Québec water case law 17: «Lower land is subject to receiving water flowing onto it naturally from higher land»
- Water case law in Québec 3: groundwater extraction under the agricultural zoning regime
- Québec water case law 16: Causality and trout mortality
- Water case law in Québec 1: the undead property of water
- Québec water caselaw 15: Earthworks in a wetland without a valid municipal authorisation
- Québec water case law 14: Failure to obtain an authorisation to discharge waste water
- Québec water case law 13: Defective septic tank
- Québec water case law 12: The «sleeping giant» v. hydroelectric development?
- Québec water case law 11: obligations under a commercial lease and the cost of a well
- Follow-up on the sleeping giant in Québec water case law 12
- Water case law in Québec 7: Class action for contamination of municipal groundwater sources
- Report on the implementation of the Québec Groundwater Catchment Regulation
- Federal Bill C-26: new restrictions on transboundary water tranfers?
- Hydraulic fracturing from shale gas exploitation pollutes drinking water
- Environmental flows in the UK: ecosystems vs. humans
- Water resources pricing in Québec
- U.S. congressional committee report on chemichals used in fracking fluids
- Report of the Commission on Cyanobacteria in Québec
- Shale gas exploitation and public interest in Texas
- Federal decision not to add the Gulf of St. Lawrence Winter Skate to the List of Species at risk
- Confirmation of agreement on the management of Lake Champlain
This entry was posted on at 1:45 PM and is filed under Case Law, Québec, Québec water case law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...