Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The city sought an interlocutory injunction to halt allegedly non-compliant recycling operations on land with disputed zoning status.

• Defendants claimed acquired rights allowing continued operation despite zoning changes.

• The Superior Court denied the injunction, citing balance of convenience and potential economic harm to defendants.

• The city argued the judge failed to properly assess the public interest and proof burden regarding acquired rights.

• The Court of Appeal held that the interlocutory ruling involved no determinative error or irreparable harm.

• Permission to appeal was refused due to the discretionary nature and limited impact of the lower court’s decision.

Background and facts of the case

In Ville de Montréal-Est v. Gestion Fraga inc., the City of Montréal-Est sought an interlocutory injunction against Gestion Fraga inc. and 9449-0869 Québec inc., who were operating a recycling business on a lot allegedly in violation of municipal zoning by-laws. The city had issued multiple non-compliance notices and eventually a citation, asserting that the recycling operation was no longer authorized under amended zoning rules. In response, the companies initiated proceedings for a declaratory judgment, claiming acquired rights that allowed them to continue their operations.

The Superior Court joined the two cases and heard the city's motion for an interlocutory injunction. The city argued that the businesses lacked any current right to operate on the site and that allowing continued activity would violate public zoning regulations. The companies countered that they had operated the site lawfully for decades and were entitled to acquired rights protection under Quebec law.

Superior Court’s refusal of the injunction

The motion judge, Justice Geeta Narang, applied the standard tripartite test for injunctive relief: serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. She acknowledged a strong appearance of right regarding non-compliance but found that the city failed to demonstrate irreparable harm beyond the regulatory infraction itself. Importantly, she held that ordering an injunction at this stage could effectively shut down the businesses before their right to operate had been adjudicated on the merits.

The balance of inconvenience favored the defendants, as an injunction would have forced them to cease operations with no viable alternatives presented by the city. The judge also noted that the city had delayed enforcement until after the defendants filed for declaratory relief, weakening its argument for urgency.

Appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal

The city sought permission to appeal the interlocutory ruling, arguing that the judge misapplied the burden of proof and gave disproportionate weight to private commercial interests over the public interest in zoning enforcement. It claimed the judge should have required the defendants to prove their acquired rights at this stage.

Justice Martin Vauclair of the Court of Appeal rejected the request. He found that the motion judge appropriately exercised her discretion, emphasizing that injunctive relief is inherently discretionary and temporary. The judge's refusal to resolve factual and legal disputes prematurely—such as the validity of acquired rights—was consistent with governing principles. Justice Vauclair reminded that interlocutory appeals are exceptional under article 31(2) of the Code de procédure civile, and no determinative legal error or risk of irreparable prejudice was present.

Conclusion and final decision

The Court of Appeal denied the city’s motion for leave to appeal and awarded legal costs against it. This ruling affirms that courts must avoid overstepping into the merits at the interlocutory stage and that municipal enforcement actions do not automatically trump commercial viability in zoning conflicts. The decision underscores judicial restraint and respect for procedural fairness in disputes involving acquired land use rights.