Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of appellate intervention in penal matters, particularly the deference owed to a trial judge’s factual findings and appreciation of evidence regarding an acquittal.
• Interpretation of a municipal “quality of life” by-law provision prohibiting “unnecessary or excessive” industrial noise as a nuisance in the context of a lawful industrial use adjacent to a residential area.
• Insufficiency of subjective neighbor testimony, without objective acoustic or decibel measurements, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the noise exceeds a reasonable level of tolerance.
• Impact of zoning conformity and the absence of a buffer zone between industrial and residential areas on what level of noise is legally tolerable for nearby residents.
• Application of an objective standard to determine nuisance by noise, and the expectation that evidence be anchored in recognized norms or measurable criteria rather than impressions alone.
• Requirement that the prosecuting municipality establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the “unnecessary or excessive” character of noise; failure to do so justifies maintaining an acquittal on appeal.

Facts of the case

La Compagnie américaine de fer & Métaux inc. operates a metal recycling facility in an industrial zone of the City of Matane, Quebec. The company acquired the immovable in question on 1 December 2020 in order to conduct recycling activities involving ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The industrial zone lies in close proximity to a small residential area comprised of about fifteen homes. Residents in this neighboring residential area had long perceived their environment as relatively quiet, almost rural in character, before the arrival of the metal recycler. After the facility began operating, some residents complained of disturbing noise associated with the company’s industrial processes. The metal received at the yard is sorted and moved using a crane, then dropped into containers. Witnesses described the sound as “metal on metal” and testified that at times their windows vibrated and dogs barked when the crane released metal into containers, causing interruptions to outdoor conversations and affecting their ability to enjoy their yards. These noises occurred only on weekdays, during the business hours of the enterprise, roughly between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and were not constant but intermittent depending on metal deliveries. The facility’s activity was, however, undisputedly permitted under the applicable zoning by-law, and the business operated in conformity with that zoning framework throughout the period in question. No physical buffer or “zone tampon” separated the industrial operations from the nearby residences, and some residents criticized the municipality for having authorized this type of activity so close to a long-standing residential enclave without more fully considering the noise and nuisance implications.

Regulatory framework and alleged infraction

The dispute arose under the City of Matane’s Règlement VM-256 sur la qualité de vie, a municipal by-law aimed at regulating nuisances affecting residents’ comfort and well-being. The specific provision at issue was section 6.1(e), which provides that, in the context of operating an industry, business, trade, or occupation, it is prohibited to make or allow “bruits inutiles ou excessifs de nature à incommoder le repos, le confort et le bien-être du voisinage.” The City issued a statement of offence to La Compagnie américaine de fer & Métaux inc., alleging that between May and December 2022, at the company’s address on rue du Port, it committed an infraction of section 6.1(e) by generating noise that constituted a nuisance to the neighboring residents’ rest, comfort, and well-being. In prosecuting the matter before the Court of Québec (sitting as a court of first instance through a juge de paix magistrat), the City did not file any sound or acoustic study, decibel readings, or expert evidence to quantify noise levels. Instead, it relied on the testimony of several nearby homeowners who described their subjective experience of disturbance and annoyance. The defendant company presented no witnesses, contesting that its operations violated the quality-of-life by-law.

First-instance judgment and burden of proof

At trial, the juge de paix magistrat, the Honorable Anne-Marie Sincennes, assessed the lay testimony about the noise and its impact on the residents. While acknowledging that the witnesses perceived a meaningful change in their environment and described important inconveniences, the judge underscored the limits of such subjective descriptions in the absence of objective benchmarks. The court noted that the municipality had offered no measurements of noise—no acoustic studies, no expert quantification of decibel levels, and no evidence situating the noise against recognized standards of tolerance. The judge further observed that the residents in question live adjacent to an industrial zone where noisy activities such as metal transshipment were permitted, and that the noise complained of occurred only during normal weekday business hours. In this context, she questioned whether a disturbance that intermittently requires people to raise their voices or briefly interrupts conversation, even if unwelcome and different from past quiet conditions, could be qualified as “unnecessary or excessive” noise amounting to a nuisance under the by-law when assessed objectively. Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that the City had not discharged its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the noise generated by the recycler’s operations was either unnecessary or excessive within the meaning of section 6.1(e) of Règlement VM-256. She therefore dismissed the statement of offence and acquitted La Compagnie américaine de fer & Métaux inc.

Appeal framework and standard of appellate review

The City of Matane appealed this acquittal to the Superior Court, Criminal and Penal Chamber, arguing that the trial judge had imposed too stringent a burden of proof regarding the noise and had erred in appreciating the evidence. The appeal was governed by article 286 of the Code of penal procedure, which provides that an appellate judge may allow an appeal where the first-instance judgment is unreasonable in light of the evidence, where an error of law has been committed, or where justice has not been done. The provision also draws a careful distinction for appeals by the prosecution against an acquittal: even if an error of law is identified, the appeal may be dismissed unless the prosecutor shows that, but for the error, the judgment would have been different. The Superior Court, per the Honorable Denis Jacques, j.c.s., recalled established jurisprudence on the limited scope of appellate intervention in penal matters—particularly in relation to pure questions of fact and to acquittals that rest heavily on the trial judge’s appreciation of witness testimony. Referring to authorities such as Langlois c. R., 2025 QCCA 1639, Tangestanifar c. R., and earlier Superior Court guidance, the judge emphasized that an appellate court must show great deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and overall assessment of the evidence, and cannot simply reweigh the evidence or substitute its own view absent a “erreur manifeste et dominante” or an unreasonable verdict. This deference is especially strict where the verdict is an acquittal and the case turns essentially on factual appreciation; the concept of an “unreasonable acquittal” is difficult to reconcile with the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Objective assessment of nuisance by noise

In reviewing the record, the Superior Court reiterated that it was common ground that the company’s activities complied with the zoning by-law throughout the relevant period. The core issue was therefore whether the noise produced by those lawful activities was “unnecessary or excessive” such as to constitute a nuisance within the meaning of the quality-of-life regulation. The judge highlighted two central deficiencies from the City’s perspective. First, there was no objective measurement of the noise—no decibel readings, no expert testimony, and no evidence anchored in recognized standards or guidelines to show that the sound level exceeded what would be reasonably tolerable for residents adjacent to an industrial zone. Second, even accepting that the neighbors experienced real discomfort, the evidence established that the noise: (a) emanated from industrial activities that were fully authorized in that zone; (b) occurred only on weekdays between 8:00 and 17:00; and (c) was intermittent rather than constant. Against this background, the Superior Court referenced prior jurisprudence, including 9169-6153 Québec inc. c. Ville de Sainte-Adèle, where courts had stressed that noise-nuisance analysis should be guided by an objective standard and, where possible, by concrete norms or measurements rather than strictly subjective impressions. The judge also noted the absence of a buffer zone between the industrial and residential areas and acknowledged residents’ criticism that the municipality had failed to anticipate and mitigate the impacts of authorizing such an activity so close to their homes. However, he treated that as contextual background, not as evidence that the company’s activities themselves produced noise meeting the by-law’s threshold of “unnecessary or excessive.”

Outcome of the appeal and final result

Applying the standard of review under article 286 of the Code of penal procedure, the Superior Court found no reviewable error in the trial judge’s analysis. The judge had plainly recognized the residents’ inconvenience and had reviewed the relevant case law on nuisance by noise, but she ultimately determined that the proof fell short of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sound from the recycler’s lawful industrial operations was unnecessary or excessive in the legal sense. The Superior Court held that this conclusion was open to her on the evidence, was neither unreasonable nor tainted by a manifest and overriding error, and did not reflect a misapprehension of the governing legal principles. As a result, the court dismissed the City of Matane’s appeal and confirmed the acquittal of La Compagnie américaine de fer & Métaux inc. In this penal by-law prosecution, no damages, indemnity, or specific monetary award was ordered in favor of any party, and no determinable figure for costs is stated in the judgment. The successful party is therefore La Compagnie américaine de fer & Métaux inc., whose acquittal was maintained on appeal and for whom no monetary award or costs amount can be determined from the decision.