Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Municipal land contribution was disputed despite a clear notarial deed confirming the 10% parkland cession.

• Appellant sought to introduce testimonial evidence to contradict the written contract, raising evidentiary objections under article 2863 C.c.Q.

• Trial judge ruled the deed was clear, conclusive, and required no interpretation.

• Argument that additional monetary compensation was owed was rejected due to lack of exact area calculations.

• Appeal focused on whether the judge erred in barring oral evidence to challenge a notarial act.

• No manifest and determinative error was found; the exclusion of contradictory testimony was upheld.

Facts of the case

Jonesco inc., a real estate developer, began a large-scale development project in the City of Granby in the mid-2000s. As required by municipal regulations, the city demanded that 10% of the development site be contributed for parkland (“fins de parc”). In 2006, the project was approved by the municipal council on the condition that specific lands would be ceded. In 2014, Jonesco formally transferred two lots to the city, as recorded in a notarial deed. The deed explicitly stated that the lots “represented the ten percent (10%) required by law for parkland.”

In 2022, following a cadastral update, the City of Granby concluded that the 2014 contribution was insufficient. It demanded that Jonesco pay the difference in cash. Jonesco complied under protest to avoid development delays and later sued for reimbursement. In the Court of Québec, the city attempted to argue—via testimonial evidence from its representative—that the land ceded did not truly represent the full 10% contribution. Jonesco objected, invoking article 2863 of the Civil Code of Québec, which restricts testimonial evidence from contradicting a notarial deed.

Procedural history

The trial judge upheld Jonesco’s objection and ruled that the notarial deed was clear and conclusive. The judge found no ambiguity that would justify admitting interpretive or contradictory evidence. Even if such evidence had been admitted, the judge noted it would not have affected the outcome, as the city had failed to establish the actual area shortfall or prove that the cession was contrary to its bylaw. Accordingly, the court ordered reimbursement of the amount paid under protest. The City of Granby appealed.

Legal issues on appeal

The appeal raised one primary legal question: whether the trial judge erred in excluding testimony from the city’s representative that contradicted the express terms of the notarial deed. The city argued the testimony was necessary to interpret the deed and understand the regulatory context. It also challenged the judge’s conclusion that the deed conclusively resolved the issue of the 10% contribution.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that interpretation of a contract is subject to the standard of review for a palpable and overriding error. It found none. The court emphasized that the notarial deed clearly stated the lots represented the full 10% parkland contribution. The city’s attempt to introduce testimonial evidence to contradict that term directly violated article 2863 C.c.Q., which prohibits using oral testimony to undermine a written notarial act.

The appellate court agreed with the trial judge that the clause in the deed was unambiguous and required no interpretation. Moreover, the city failed to present sufficient evidence of the precise discrepancy between the ceded land and the 10% requirement, further weakening its claim. The court also noted the absence of relevant documents—like the municipal resolution authorizing the cession—in the appeal record.

Disposition and outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. The City of Granby was ordered to reimburse the amount Jonesco paid under protest, and costs were awarded against the city. The appellate decision reinforced the binding nature of notarial acts and the limits of oral evidence in civil litigation under Quebec law.