Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The City of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville sought permission to appeal a Superior Court judgment suspending an expropriation proceeding.

• The appeal hinged on whether the judge erred in interpreting article 17(2) of the Loi concernant l’expropriation, newly amended as of December 2023.

• The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that interlocutory judgments ordering a stay are appealable only in exceptional circumstances.

• The existence of a novel legal provision alone was deemed insufficient to justify granting leave to appeal.

• The trial judge had applied the appropriate legal framework from the Metropolitan Stores case and exercised discretion without error.

• The Court denied leave to appeal, finding no serious question warranting appellate review and ordered the City to pay costs.

Facts of the case

In Ville de Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville c. Devco Développement inc., 2025 QCCA 261, the City of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville filed a request for leave to appeal a decision rendered by the Superior Court on January 13, 2025. That decision had suspended an expropriation proceeding initiated by the City against four lots owned by Devco Développement Inc. and Gestion ID1 Inc. The City’s request was filed under articles 31 and 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern appellate permission for interlocutory rulings.

The legal background involved the recent enactment of article 17(2) of the Loi concernant l’expropriation, which came into force on December 29, 2023. Previously, an expropriation would be automatically suspended upon a challenge to the right of expropriation unless the court ordered otherwise. The new rule reverses that presumption: such a challenge no longer has an automatic suspensive effect unless the judge explicitly grants it. In this case, the Superior Court judge exercised discretion to order the suspension. The City, disagreeing with this ruling, argued that the interpretation and application of this new provision merited appellate intervention.

Legal analysis and findings

Justice Frédéric Bachand of the Court of Appeal dismissed the City’s request for leave to appeal. He reiterated that permission to appeal interlocutory decisions is granted only in rare cases, typically where the interests of justice demand it, the issue is novel or controversial, and the proposed appeal presents a reasonable chance of success. While he acknowledged that the appeal would involve interpreting a new provision, he stated that this alone was insufficient to justify intervention. There was no evident controversy in the case law, and other judges had applied the same legal framework as the Superior Court did in this matter.

The trial judge was found to have correctly relied on the analytical structure established in Metropolitan Stores, a foundational case that guides courts in determining whether to stay proceedings. The City’s argument that the judge failed to assess the criteria holistically and overlooked legislative intent to depart from prior norms was rejected. Justice Bachand noted that the Superior Court’s judgment clearly demonstrated awareness of the legislative change and appropriately applied the relevant criteria.

Further, the City essentially asked the Court to reweigh the judge’s application of discretion, which is not a valid basis for appeal unless there is a clear error. Justice Bachand emphasized that appellate courts must show deference to discretionary decisions by first-instance judges and cannot intervene merely because they might have reached a different result.

Outcome

The Québec Court of Appeal dismissed the City’s application for leave to appeal. It concluded that the trial judge had conducted a careful and legally sound analysis of the criteria for ordering a stay under the new article 17(2) of the Loi concernant l’expropriation, consistent with existing jurisprudence. The Court also found that the City failed to raise a compelling question of law or demonstrate any serious error. As a result, the request for appellate review was denied, and the City was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.