Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The City of Gatineau appealed a Superior Court ruling that authorized the demolition of a building despite municipal opposition.

• The dispute centered on whether the building constituted a safety hazard and whether demolition was the only effective remedy under article 231 of the Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme (LAU).

• The City argued the structure's front portion was not dangerous and that demolition was unnecessary, but the court preferred the evidence indicating total structural instability.

• The City claimed a procedural error in not notifying the Minister of Culture prior to demolition, which the Court of Appeal rejected.

• The judge’s analysis of expert reports and credibility assessments was upheld as within her discretion.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the demolition order and awarding costs to the respondent.

Facts and procedural background

In November 2020, Gestion NDI Champlain inc. acquired a property in Gatineau containing a dilapidated early 20th-century home known as a “maison hulloise,” intending to demolish it along with nearby properties to build a 159-unit residential complex. The company applied for demolition permits in August 2021 under the then-applicable bylaw, which was later replaced by a stricter regulation, Règlement 900-2021, regulating demolitions of heritage buildings. Under the new regime, the building in question was considered a “patrimonial building” due to its inclusion in a non-adopted 2008 inventory.

Expert reports presented conflicting views on the building's condition. While some suggested it could be preserved or relocated, structural engineering reports identified severe deficiencies, recommending full demolition for safety reasons. The City’s Demolition Committee (CDD) denied the demolition request in October 2022. The City Council later upheld the decision, allowing only partial demolition of the rear extension.

In December 2022, the company filed an application with the Superior Court under article 231 LAU, seeking judicial authorization to demolish the entire structure due to safety concerns. After a three-day hearing in January 2024, the court granted the demolition request, concluding that the structure posed a real and imminent danger and that no other remedy would be effective.

Appeal and legal arguments

The City of Gatineau appealed the Superior Court judgment, raising several issues. First, it argued that a notice should have been given to the Minister of Culture under article 138 of the Loi modifiant la Loi sur le patrimoine culturel, since the building was constructed before 1940. The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that article 231 LAU operates independently of municipal permit processes and does not require such notice.

Second, the City claimed that the trial judge had erred in assessing the building as wholly dangerous, rather than distinguishing between the front and rear sections. The Court found this argument insufficient, stating that the judge had considered expert evidence from both parties and was entitled to prefer the opinion of the jointly appointed expert who concluded that the entire structure was compromised.

Third, the City alleged the judge exceeded her jurisdiction by ordering the virtual preservation of the building’s heritage elements, which had not been formally requested. The Court dismissed this as a non-determinative issue, noting that the demolition order was ultimately the relief sought by the property owner and that the virtual preservation order was not prejudicial.

Finally, the City blamed the property owner for the building’s deterioration. The Court found no basis for this claim, emphasizing that the structure was already in poor condition when acquired, and the City's enforcement efforts had been minimal and late.

Outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It upheld the Superior Court’s finding that the building constituted a real safety hazard and that demolition was the only appropriate remedy under article 231 LAU. The City of Gatineau was ordered to pay legal costs.