Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of acquired rights (droits acquis) for longstanding glass recovery and valorization operations on specified lots despite later zoning changes.
• Characterization of the proposed optical glass sorting facility as a mere intensification and technological modernization of an existing non-conforming industrial use rather than a new use.
• Assessment of historical regulatory approvals, permits, and attestations to prove continuous, lawful industrial and glass-processing activities since before restrictive zoning was adopted.
• Application of jurisprudence (Huot, Saint-Romuald, Transport Touchette and others) to determine when evolving methods and increased activity remain within the same “usage” protected by acquired rights.
• Determination of whether the municipal official has the legal duty and authority to decide on the existence and scope of acquired rights when processing building permit applications.
• Evaluation of the municipality’s refusal to decide on rights acquired and its attempt to shift that responsibility to the courts as inconsistent with the urban planning statute and its own regulations.

Factual background and development of the industrial site
Sable des Forges inc. operates an industrial site in Trois-Rivières, Québec, consisting of several lots forming a single immovable (l’Immeuble). Since 1959, the site has been used continuously for industrial purposes, initially as a gravel and sand pit (gravière-sablière) operated by Sable des Forges. In 1979, the company was acquired by Groupe Bellemare, and over the decades the activities expanded to include drying and screening of aggregates, sorting and valorization of materials and debris, recovery and valorization of glass, and the landfilling of dry materials. These glass-related operations include cleaning, drying, sorting (triage), crushing (concassage), screening (tamisage), storage (entreposage) and bagging (ensachage) of recycled glass products carried out on the immovable.
In 2007, the City of Trois-Rivières adopted a specific by-law to authorize the establishment of a centre for sorting and valorizing residual materials on certain lots of the immovable, under an interim control regulation. This authorization expressly allowed the sorting of inert materials from construction or demolition, crushing and screening of dry materials, shredding of wood, glass crushing, recovery of metals and washing, loading and storage of transformed aggregates. That same year, the City issued attestations of conformity for a non-hazardous residual materials management centre on the site, followed by a building permit authorizing the construction of a sorting centre. In 2009, another attestation confirmed compliance for the valorization of crushed glass as cover material on the immovable.
In 2010, the City adopted a new Zoning By-law (Règlement sur le zonage 2010) that placed most of the immovable in zone ER-8005, a zone dominated by “extraction and revalorization.” This zoning expressly included the use “Récupération et triage du verre” as an authorized use. After this regulatory change, Sable des Forges reorganized some of its glass recovery and valorization operations in the north-west portion of the site. Between 2016 and 2018, the City issued multiple attestations and permits to the company, including authorizations to modify the glass conditioning process and wash-water treatment system, to build industrial wells to supply the recycled glass plant, and to install a groundwater capture system for glass washing.
The company’s glass recovery and valorization operations became more geographically distributed across different lots of the immovable, but they remained part of a continuous industrial process. The City itself promoted glass recovery and valorization through public recycling infrastructure and communications, and in 2023 it authorized the construction of a dome-type building on the site for glass recovery and valorization. Sable des Forges built this dome and used it for receiving, sorting and screening raw glass, which helped reduce nuisances such as noise and dust for the surrounding area.

Regulatory change in 2021 and emergence of a non-conforming use
On 21 September 2021, the City adopted a new Urban Planning By-law (Règlement d’urbanisme 2021) that repealed the 2010 zoning by-law and reclassified the uses permitted on the immovable. The site was placed in zone EXT-3392, dominated by “extraction,” where the only listed uses are extractive industry, conservation and communication and energy infrastructure. Glass recovery and valorization uses, including the actual operations carried out by Sable des Forges, were no longer listed as permitted.
Despite the change, Sable des Forges continued its industrial activities – including glass recovery and valorization – without interruption. These activities, once explicitly authorized, became technically “non-conforming” under the 2021 by-law. However, they were covered by acquired rights (droits acquis) because they were lawfully in existence and continuously exercised before the prohibitive regulation came into force. The City itself acknowledged, through resolutions, letters and later a partial acquiescence in court, that Sable des Forges enjoyed acquired rights to continue its glass recovery and valorization operations on the immovable.

The proposed optical glass sorting building and the permit dispute
On 19 December 2024, Sable des Forges submitted a permit application (D202408294) to construct a new building on the immovable dedicated to optical glass sorting. This building would house a modern, automated system employing optical sorting technology to separate glass by colour as part of the existing glass recovery and valorization chain. The project aimed to optimize the operations by automating sorting, confining activities indoors to further reduce external nuisances (noise, dust) and adapting to evolving market and technological requirements. The company already handled almost all glass to be recycled from Québec’s regional county municipalities and expected to continue doing so, but with more efficient handling and cleaner input resulting from new Recyc-Québec collection methods that would avoid glass from blue bins.
On 17 January 2025, the City responded that the intended use of the proposed building was not permitted under the 2021 Urban Planning By-law. It indicated that the burden of proving acquired rights rested with Sable des Forges and requested a site plan signed by a land surveyor. In February 2025, Sable des Forges supplied a detailed letter of representations and documentary proof to establish the existence and scope of acquired rights that, in its view, justified authorization of the optical sorting building under those rights. In April 2025, the City’s planning and sustainable development department issued a written position. It recognized that glass recovery and sorting activities had been carried out continuously on the immovable for many years, that the 2010 zoning by-law had expressly permitted such activities in zone ER-8005, and that Sable des Forges could continue its activities protected by acquired rights. However, the City asserted it could not decide whether the proposed optical sorting operations would constitute an aggravation of the non-conforming use, taking the view that issue belonged to the courts and required detailed evidence.
Faced with the City’s refusal to determine the full scope of the acquired rights and to decide conclusively on the permit application, Sable des Forges brought a declaratory action before the Superior Court. The company sought a declaration that its immovable enjoys acquired rights to exercise glass recovery and valorization activities using the new optical sorting method and a declaration confirming that the City’s designated official must rule on the existence and scope of acquired rights when processing building permit applications, so as to avoid recurring disputes for future projects.

Legal framework on non-conforming uses and acquired rights
The Court began by recalling the classic conditions for acquired rights in Québec zoning law, as restated by the Court of Appeal in Huot v. Municipalité de l’Ange-Gardien. An acquired right exists only if the non-conforming use was lawful before the entry into force of the prohibitive regulation, has been exercised in a real and continuous manner, and attaches to the immovable rather than to a particular owner. Once established, such rights may, in some circumstances, be modified or intensified without being lost, but mere ownership alone is not enough to claim them.
These jurisprudential principles are incorporated into the City’s own 2021 Urban Planning By-law, which provides that a non-conforming use or construction benefits from acquired rights when it was legally exercised before the new by-law rendered it non-conforming and has persisted over time in line with the principles recognized by the courts. The evidence, which was not contradicted, demonstrated that Sable des Forges was and remains engaged in glass recovery and valorization activities on the immovable. Under the 2010 zoning by-law, these activities were lawfully carried out and expressly included “récupération et triage du verre,” supported by multiple municipal permits and attestations of conformity. When the 2021 Urban Planning By-law came into force, those industrial activities became non-conforming from a zoning standpoint, but they were clearly shielded by acquired rights as of that date.
The Court emphasized that the proper temporal reference for assessing whether acquired rights exist is the date on which the new prohibitive regulation takes effect. At that moment, one must ask whether the non-conforming activity was lawful and continuous. Here, the answer was clearly yes, and the City itself had recognized those rights through several actions, including a City Council resolution, the April 2025 letter and a partial acquiescence filed in the court proceedings.

Intensification, modernization and the nature of the existing use
The core legal question then became whether the proposed optical glass sorting operations fell within the scope of the acquired rights as a permissible evolution or intensification of the pre-existing use, or whether they would amount to a new, different use not covered by those rights. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier provides the governing framework. That case confirms that acquired rights protect not only the exact same use as at the time of the prohibitive regulation, but also allow some adaptation to changing market conditions and technology, so long as the basic nature of the use remains the same and the impacts on the neighbourhood do not fundamentally change. The analysis requires identifying the purpose and nature of the pre-existing use, distinguishing between “use,” “activity” and “method of operation,” and then assessing whether subsequent developments constitute an intensification within the same type of use or a qualitative change of use. Courts also look at whether the evolution produces different or more severe effects on the surrounding area.
The Court noted that over time, Québec courts have allowed a variety of evolutions under the protection of acquired rights: the transformation of a bar’s theme, changes in storage activities, expansion of parking areas, increases in the number of animals or vehicles, or modifications in the use of a repair garage, provided the overall use remained of the same nature. In this case, the evidence showed that the pre-existing use at Sable des Forges’ site was the recovery and valorization of glass – including cleaning, drying, sorting, crushing, screening, storage and bagging of recycled glass products. This complex industrial activity had been formally authorized and actively supported by the City.
Against that backdrop, the introduction of industrial drums and optical sorting machinery for glass sorting was treated as a technological refinement and modernization within the same use, rather than a new line of business or a different industrial category. The operations still involved recovering and valorizing glass; only the method of sorting and the level of automation would change. The Court found no evidence of new or heightened negative impacts on the neighbourhood associated with the optical sorting equipment. On the contrary, by confining activities indoors and automating processes, the project was designed to mitigate nuisances such as noise and dust. The Court concluded that the proposed optical sorting represented, at most, an intensification and modernization of the existing non-conforming use that remains firmly within the protected category of glass recovery and valorization. There was no aggravation of the non-conforming character that would extinguish the acquired rights.

Municipal permitting powers and the duty to decide on acquired rights
Beyond the zoning and acquired rights issues, the case also raised an important administrative and municipal law question: whether the City’s designated official, responsible for issuing permits under the Planning and Development Act (Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme – LAU), is empowered and obliged to assess the existence and scope of acquired rights when considering building permit applications. Sable des Forges argued that the City erred in insisting it could not decide on those issues and in demanding a prior judicial declaration as a condition for processing the permit. It maintained that the municipal official must apply the law and the by-laws, including the rules on non-conforming uses and acquired rights, and cannot systematically defer such questions to the courts.
The Superior Court agreed. Citing section 120 LAU, it noted that the designated municipal official must issue a building permit or authorization if the application meets the zoning and construction by-laws, the required information and documents are provided and the applicable fee is paid. This is a bound power, not a discretionary one; once the relevant facts are established, the official must apply the criteria objectively. Case law such as Shiller v. Bousquet confirms that the official’s assessment of fact does not confer discretion in the sense of policy choice; the official must either grant or refuse the permit strictly according to law. While the Superior Court owes no deference to a municipal official’s determination of acquired rights when conducting judicial review, it remains the official’s responsibility in the first instance to decide whether an application complies with the applicable planning rules, including the provisions on non-conforming uses and acquired rights.
The Court also relied on the City’s own regulatory framework. Article 979 of the 2021 Urban Planning By-law refers to the jurisprudential principles on acquired rights, signalling that municipal authorities are expected to apply those principles in everyday permitting decisions. Further, article 982 addresses the aggravation of a non-conforming use, another issue that municipal officials must evaluate when examining applications. The Court held that nothing in the law or in the City’s by-laws supports a blanket requirement to obtain a judicial decision for every permit application involving acquired rights. Instead, the official must conduct a factual and legal analysis of the history of use, regulatory context and potential intensification, and then decide, subject to possible judicial review if a party challenges that decision.

Outcome, declarations granted and absence of monetary award
In light of the evidence and the applicable law, the Superior Court granted Sable des Forges comprehensive declaratory relief. It declared that the immovable composed of the listed lots benefits from acquired rights to conduct glass recovery and valorization activities, expressly including cleaning, drying, sorting, crushing, screening, storage and bagging of recycled glass products. It further declared that the sorting operations form an integral part of these activities and are protected by acquired rights. Crucially, the Court held that the proposed optical glass sorting operations in the building covered by permit application D202408294 are permitted on the immovable by virtue of the acquired rights, characterizing them as no more than an intensification of pre-existing sorting operations of the same nature. The Court ordered the City of Trois-Rivières to re-evaluate the permit application in accordance with these conclusions and the urban planning regulations in force at the time of the application. Finally, the Court declared that, when processing permit applications, the City’s director of planning and urban development or any designated official charged with applying the relevant laws and regulations must determine the existence and scope of acquired rights under the City’s planning by-laws, without needing to decide on the ultimate outer limits beyond which acquired rights might be lost.
The successful party is Sable des Forges inc., which obtained all of the key declaratory relief it sought regarding the recognition of its acquired rights and the treatment of its permit application. However, the Court explicitly ordered that the matter be disposed of “sans frais de justice compte tenu des circonstances,” meaning no party was awarded costs, damages or any other monetary relief. Accordingly, no monetary award or quantified costs were granted in favour of Sable des Forges, and the total amount ordered in its favour is zero.