Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute involved a resident’s request for an injunction to stop disruptive noise from a neighboring music venue.

• Beaudoin’s legal claim was based on neighborhood disturbances under Article 976 C.c.Q. and municipal noise bylaws.

• The Court of Appeal had previously granted a more stringent injunction enforcing the stricter noise standard under Article 9 of the bylaw.

• Following a bylaw amendment, the venue sought to retract or nullify the injunction, arguing it was now inapplicable.

• The Court of Appeal ruled it lacked jurisdiction to revoke or modify its own injunction on changed circumstances.

• The request was dismissed, confirming only the Superior Court could consider lifting or altering the injunction.

Background and facts of the case

Pierre-Yves Beaudoin, a resident of Montreal, initiated proceedings in the Superior Court against Cabaret Music-Hall Inc. and related parties, operating the venue “La Tulipe.” He sought a permanent injunction to halt noise disturbances from the venue’s sound equipment, which he claimed caused a serious, abnormal, and recurring nuisance inside his apartment. Beaudoin’s claim was rooted in Article 976 of the Civil Code of Québec concerning neighborhood disturbances, and Article 9 of the municipal noise bylaw specific to the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough, which prohibited audible noise from sound equipment in other dwellings.

The Superior Court partially granted the injunction in 2023, ordering La Tulipe to complete specific soundproofing work. However, the court had applied the more lenient standard in Article 8 of the bylaw, which permitted certain levels of noise measured in decibels. Dissatisfied, Beaudoin appealed, arguing that the stricter standard in Article 9 should have been applied, which prohibited any distinguishable sound.

The Court of Appeal’s 2024 ruling and aftermath

In September 2024, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed Beaudoin’s appeal, agreeing that Article 9 was the correct legal standard. It issued a revised injunction, ordering La Tulipe to cease emitting any sound that could be heard from Beaudoin’s residence and directing the venue’s affiliated property company to take necessary measures to prevent such disturbances.

Shortly after, in October 2024, the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough amended the noise bylaw by introducing an exception for venues like La Tulipe. Under the new second paragraph of Article 9, sound from entertainment establishments such as bars and performance halls was exempted from the previously strict standard, effectively relaxing the restrictions that had justified the injunction.

La Tulipe’s attempt to annul the injunction

Citing the bylaw amendment, La Tulipe filed a motion before both the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court, seeking to retract or declare void the injunction. They argued the legal basis for the injunction no longer existed due to the change in municipal law. However, they were uncertain which court had jurisdiction to rule on the matter and filed simultaneously in both.

The Court of Appeal, in its 2025 judgment, dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds. It ruled that while it had issued the revised injunction in 2024, it had done so in its appellate capacity—correcting the trial court's error. It emphasized that only the Superior Court, which holds inherent jurisdiction over injunctive relief, could decide whether changed circumstances warranted declaring the injunction void or modifying it.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed La Tulipe’s motion to retract or annul the injunction for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that while appellate courts can issue injunctions when correcting errors, any future request to revoke or revise such an order due to subsequent legislative changes must be brought before the trial court. The injunction against La Tulipe remains in force unless and until the Superior Court declares it invalid in light of the amended municipal bylaw.