Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the legality of decisions by the Borough of Lachine and the City of Montréal to alter or end a partnership with Club de natation Lachine (2007) in 2020.
• Allegations targeted both the City and individual elected officials for approving allegedly “non-conforming” resolutions and files in breach of municipal recognition policies for non-profit organizations.
• Core legal issue was whether the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec can rule on the validity and legality of municipal resolutions, decisions and policies.
• The court found that only the Superior Court of Québec has jurisdiction to control and review decisions and resolutions of public bodies such as the City of Montréal.
• Because the claim required a prior determination of the legality of municipal resolutions, the Small Claims Division held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
• The court declined jurisdiction without costs, leaving the defendants successful and no monetary award or costs ordered in favour of any party.

Background and parties

The dispute arises out of a long-standing relationship between Club de natation Lachine (2007), a local swimming club, and the Borough of Lachine in Montréal. The club had an existing partnership with the borough that involved the use of municipal facilities and recognition within the municipal system. In 2020, the borough decided to modify or end this existing partnership, which became the source of the conflict. The plaintiff is Club de natation Lachine (2007). The original defendants are four elected officials of the Borough of Lachine at the time: Maja Vodanovic, the then mayor, and three other elected officials, Younes Boukala, Micheline Rouleau and Michèle Flannery. The City of Montréal, acting through the Borough of Lachine, was later added as a co-defendant. The action was brought before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division (Division des petites créances), for an amount of 15,000 dollars, which is within the monetary limits of that division.

Facts and allegations

According to the claim, the entire cause of action is based on decisions taken by Lachine in 2020 regarding the modification of the partnership between the swimming club and the borough. Those decisions are reflected in various letters and municipal documents: a letter of 15 June 2020, further letters of 18 June 2020 and 3 July 2020, a formal demand sent on 2 August 2020, and a decision summary and borough council resolution (CA20190147) evidencing the municipal decision-making process. The club alleged that it had “problems with certain actions and decisions” of the administration of Mayor Maja Vodanovic, suggesting that the borough’s leadership handled the file in a manner contrary to the rules that should have governed its relationship with recognized non-profit organizations. More specifically, the plaintiff claimed that Vodanovic failed to respect the “rules and agreements defined in the policy for recognition of non-profit organizations” of the municipality she represented. In addition, the claim alleged that the three other elected officials, Boukala, Rouleau and Flannery, approved files they knew were not compliant, characterizing their decisions as approval of “non-conforming” dossiers. These allegations framed the dispute as one where municipal officials and the City allegedly departed from their own policies and from lawful decision-making standards in dealing with the club.

Municipal responsibility and extension of the claim

In a later amended pleading, the club broadened its claim to focus directly on the City of Montréal. It alleged that the City was responsible for the “non-conforming” decisions taken at the borough level by Lachine. The theory was that the borough and its elected officials, acting for the City, had adopted or voted on resolutions and decisions that were not in conformity with applicable municipal policies and legal standards. The plaintiff explicitly asserted that the elected officials had voted on a “non-conforming” resolution, pointing to municipal documents filed in evidence. In substance, the plaintiff was asking the court to recognize that specific municipal resolutions and decisions were invalid or unlawful, and to award it monetary damages as a consequence.

Policy framework and public law context

While the judgment does not reproduce the full text of the “policy of recognition of non-profit organizations” relied upon by the plaintiff, it is clear that the club’s case was grounded in that policy framework. The plaintiff’s position was that the borough and its officials were bound to apply this recognition policy correctly, and that the decisions affecting the partnership with the club breached the policy’s rules and the “agreements defined” in it. The City of Montréal is legally characterized as a public law legal person under the Charter of the City of Montréal and the general statutes governing municipalities in Québec. This characterization is crucial: once the dispute is framed as a challenge to the legality of resolutions, decisions or policies of a public law entity, the case enters the realm of judicial review and public law control rather than ordinary small claims litigation.

Jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division

The decisive issue in the case was not whether the borough’s decisions were fair or whether the club suffered harm, but whether the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec had jurisdiction to rule on the legality and validity of municipal decisions and resolutions. The judge reviewed the jurisdictional scheme under the Code of Civil Procedure. Articles 33 and 34 establish that the Superior Court of Québec is the court of general jurisdiction and holds the general power of judicial control over public bodies, including municipalities and public law legal persons. Only the Superior Court may, by way of judicial review proceedings, determine whether municipal resolutions, regulations or decisions are lawful, declare them invalid, or pronounce them ultra vires. The judgment cites prior case law confirming that the Court of Québec, and especially when it sits as a Small Claims Division, cannot issue declaratory judgments in municipal matters, cannot annul municipal resolutions or contracts, and cannot declare municipal policies or decisions ultra vires. It also cannot entertain a monetary claim if the court would first need to decide on the legality of a municipal resolution or decision in order to rule on that claim.

Application of the jurisdictional rules to the claim

Applying these principles, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s entire claim depended on first finding that municipal resolutions and decisions of the Borough of Lachine and the City of Montréal were non-conforming, unlawful or invalid. The plaintiff even framed its allegations in terms of a “non-conforming” resolution and non-compliant decisions, effectively inviting the court to review and strike down municipal decision-making. Because only the Superior Court has the authority to exercise that kind of control over public bodies, the Small Claims Division could not, as a matter of law, undertake that analysis. The court also emphasized that jurisdictional rules are matters of public order, meaning they cannot be waived or cured by the parties’ consent or by the merits of the case.

Outcome and successful parties

Given this jurisdictional defect, the court did not analyze the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations, did not evaluate evidence on fault or damages and did not address whether any municipal policy clauses had in fact been breached. Instead, it held that the plaintiff should first have brought a proceeding before the Superior Court to challenge the validity of the disputed municipal decisions. Concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, formally declined competence and disposed of the case “without costs.” As a result, the defendants—the four individual elected officials and the City of Montréal (Arrondissement Lachine)—are the successful parties. No damages, costs or other monetary amounts were awarded to any party, meaning the total monetary award or order in favour of the successful parties is zero dollars.