Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Validity of a special sector tax imposed by municipal by-law 677-2022 for snow removal on a single public road (côte du Bateau) serving 27 riverfront properties.
• Scope of municipal powers under the Loi sur les compétences municipales and Loi sur la fiscalité municipale to adopt a targeted mode of tarification linked to the benefit conferred on specific taxpayers.
• Application of the “reasonable time” requirement under article 529 C.p.c. to a judicial review attacking a municipal by-law adopted more than 20 months before the proceeding was served.
• Allegations that the special sector tax was arbitrary, discriminatory, and imposed without procedural fairness, weighed against the deferential “reasonableness” standard for municipal regulations.
• Claim of acquired rights by the affected owners to continued snow-removal funding through the general property tax, and the municipality’s entitlement to change its taxation/tarification scheme.
• Evidentiary demonstration of substantial cost increases and particular physical constraints of the côte du Bateau justifying the differentiated snow-removal tax burden on the 27 properties.

Factual background

The case arises from a judicial review brought by the Association des citoyens de Sainte-Croix (the Association) challenging the legality of article 9 of municipal by-law 677-2022 adopted by the Municipalité de Sainte-Croix (the Municipality). The impugned provision imposed, for the year 2023, a special sector tax of 420 dollars per property on 27 properties located at the bottom of the côte du Bateau, to partially offset the increased cost of snow removal for that road. The Association also sought reimbursement of the special tax already paid by these owners. The Municipality opposed the judicial review and defended the validity and reasonableness of its by-law.

Sainte-Croix is a small municipality of 2,628 inhabitants situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. Its territory includes several steep access roads (“côtes”) leading down to riverfront properties. All such access roads are private, except for the côte du Bateau, which was municipalised around 1988. Since then, the Municipality has been responsible for its maintenance and snow removal, while the other côtes remain privately maintained and cleared by the citizens who use them. The côte du Bateau is approximately 950 metres long, with a width between 4.75 and 6 metres, and features a steep slope varying from 12% in the upper portion to 23% in the lower portion.

From 2017 to 2022, snow removal for the côte du Bateau was procured via public tender and awarded to Déneigement Roger Lambert (DRL) at a total contract price of 154,375 dollars plus taxes for five winters, funded entirely from general property tax revenues. For 2022–2027, the Municipality again launched a call for tenders. Only DRL submitted a bid, at 344,062.69 dollars for five years, representing an 82.6% increase compared to the cost for winter 2021-2022 and roughly a 93.85% increase when compared against the total cost of the 2017-2022 contract. Despite this steep increase, the Municipality awarded DRL the contract for 2022–2027.

Adoption of the special sector tax

When preparing the 2023 budget, the Municipality considered introducing a special sector tax to help offset the sharply higher snow-removal costs specific to the côte du Bateau. On 12 December 2022, it tabled and adopted the draft by-law 677-2022 and gave notice of motion at the same council meeting. On 9 January 2023, council adopted the by-law, including article 9, which created the “Taxe foncière spéciale de secteur ‘Voirie – Côte du Bateau’” in the amount of 420 dollars per serviced unit located at the bottom of the côte du Bateau, as compensation for the snow-removal service.

In a 27 January 2023 municipal newsletter, the mayor explained that the 420-dollar annual tax on each of the 27 properties represented approximately 50% of the snow-removal cost increase for the côte du Bateau. Many affected owners objected. Some wrote emails to the mayor and others attended council meetings in February and March 2023 to voice their opposition.

On 29 March 2023, counsel for the Association wrote to the Municipality asserting that the by-law was null and ultra vires and asking for information, warning that court proceedings might follow if the information was not provided within ten days. The Municipality, advised by counsel, replied that it would contest any legal proceedings challenging the regulation. On 17 July 2023, the Association’s president wrote again requesting repeal of the impugned regulation; the Municipality responded that it did not intend to suspend or repeal it and would oppose any action contesting its legality.

On 24 January 2024, the Municipality adopted by-law 698-2023, which imposed, for the year 2023, the same 420-dollar special sector tax for snow removal of côte du Bateau. The judicial review, however, did not attack this subsequent by-law; it was directed only at article 9 of by-law 677-2022. The Association ultimately instituted its judicial review on 25 September 2024.

Issues raised in the judicial review

The Association advanced four main grounds to have article 9 of the by-law declared null: lack of municipal jurisdiction to adopt the provision; unreasonableness, including arbitrariness and discriminatory taxation; violation of alleged acquired rights of the 27 owners to continued funding of snow removal through the general tax base; and breach of procedural fairness on the basis that the concerned owners supposedly had no opportunity to be heard before the regulation was adopted.

The Municipality responded that it had full jurisdiction to adopt the by-law, that the judicial review had not been brought within a reasonable time as required by article 529 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that in any event the by-law was reasonable in both purpose and effect.

Municipal powers and the legality of the tax

On the core jurisdictional issue, the Court held that Sainte-Croix clearly had authority over the côte du Bateau as a public road since its municipalisation in 1988, under article 66 of the Loi sur les compétences municipales (LCM), which grants municipalities control over public roads not within provincial or federal jurisdiction. Article 67 LCM allows municipalities to regulate maintenance of such public ways, which includes snow removal. Jurisprudence also recognizes a municipal discretion to decide which roads on its territory will be cleared of snow.

On the fiscal side, the Court relied on article 244.1 of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (LFM), which authorizes a municipality to establish, by regulation, a mode of “tarification” for services it provides, separate from general value-based property taxation. Under article 244.2 LFM, such compensation may be required from the owner or occupant of an immovable. Article 244.3 LFM requires that the tariff be related to the benefit received by the debtor. The benefit exists not only where the service is actually used, but also where it is at the debtor’s disposal such that it can benefit him or her.

The Association argued that the 27 properties received no additional benefit, since snow removal of the côte du Bateau had already been financed from the general tax base before the new tariff was imposed. The Court rejected this interpretation, stressing that the legal question was whether the targeted owners benefit from the service financed by the tariff, not whether they receive an “extra” benefit compared to the prior funding method. Because the 27 properties plainly rely on the côte du Bateau to access their homes in winter, they clearly benefit from the snow-removal service. The Court therefore found that the Association had failed to establish any lack of jurisdiction in the Municipality to adopt the special sector tax.

Delay in bringing the judicial review

The Court then examined whether the judicial review was instituted within a reasonable time under article 529 C.p.c. That provision states that a judicial review must be served within a reasonable period from the impugned act, here the adoption of by-law 677-2022 on 9 January 2023. Quebec case law generally equates this “reasonable” period to about 30 days from the act, subject to exceptional circumstances justifying a longer delay. The burden lies with the applicant to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances.

The Court referred to Supreme Court authority (Immeubles Port-Louis) on assessing the reasonableness of delay, including the nature of the impugned act, alleged illegality and its consequences, and reasons for the delay, as well as Court of Appeal jurisprudence confirming that the delay runs from adoption of the regulation, not from the taxpayer’s factual discovery of it. Municipal regulations are presumed known once adopted, because publication of notice creates a presumption of knowledge, and stability of the law requires prompt challenges.

Here, the Association served its judicial review only on 26 September 2024, more than one year and eight months after the adoption of the impugned by-law. The Court underscored that several Association members had actual, early knowledge of the regulation and objected to it, as shown by emails and attendance at council meetings in early 2023, and that the by-law and its rationale had been publicly explained by the mayor in the municipal newsletter. Moreover, by the time the proceeding was filed, by-law 677-2022 no longer had legal effect because it concerned 2023 and had been superseded by by-law 698-2023, whose validity was not attacked.

The Association offered no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify such a lengthy delay. The Court therefore concluded that the judicial review had not been brought within a reasonable time under article 529 C.p.c., which in itself warranted dismissal of the entire application.

Assessment of reasonableness and discrimination

Even though this finding on delay was dispositive, the Court went on to analyze the merits, applying the standard of reasonableness established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov and by the municipal law case Catalyst Paper. Municipal regulations are assessed with considerable deference, in light of the broad discretionary powers of democratically elected councils and the wide range of social, economic and political considerations that legitimately inform their decisions. Judicial intervention is reserved for situations where the regulation is one that no reasonable decision-maker could have adopted, or where it reflects an abuse or misuse of power through fraud, overt discrimination, manifest injustice, bad faith, or overly oppressive restrictions, as described by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Frelighsburg and the Supreme Court in earlier cases.

The Association alleged that the special sector tax was arbitrary and discriminatory because it singled out the 27 properties served by the côte du Bateau. The Court rejected these claims. It found that the precipitating factor for the new tax was the “explosion” in snow-removal costs for this specific road, evidenced by the sharp increase in contract prices between the 2017–2022 and 2022–2027 periods. The unique physical characteristics of the côte du Bateau—a steep grade of 12% to 23% requiring an always-adhesive surface for safety—obliged the contractor to make more frequent passes during snowfalls and yielded significantly higher costs than for other municipal streets.

The evidence showed that, while the côte du Bateau is only about 950 metres long, the contractor’s bid for its snow removal (344,062.69 dollars) was substantial compared to the bid for all other municipal streets (494,110.81 dollars) covering a total length of 11.62 kilometres. For winter 2021-2022, costs for the côte du Bateau were 37,683.06 dollars, rising to 68,812.54 dollars for 2022-2023, an increase of 31,129.48 dollars, or 82.6%.

Initially, the Municipality aimed for the special sector tax to fund about 50% of this increase. In practice, the 420-dollar charge per property across 27 properties generated 11,340 dollars annually. This amounted to roughly 36% of the cost increase when taxes were included and about 42% when only the untaxed contract price was considered. The Court viewed this as a limited and proportionate contribution by the directly benefiting owners, not an unreasonable or oppressive shifting of the entire increased burden. The Municipality’s decision therefore fell well within the range of acceptable, defensible outcomes.

On the discrimination argument, the Court emphasized that the particular configuration and hazards of the côte du Bateau justified a differentiated financial treatment; the by-law targeted the set of owners who uniquely and directly benefited from the expensive service. All other côtes in the municipality are privately owned and maintained, so there was no improper comparison to be made with them. Since the LFM expressly permits a mode of tarification tied to the benefit received, the Municipality did not act in a discriminatory fashion in adopting article 9.

The Association also asserted that its members had been denied a right to be heard before adoption of the by-law. The Court held that, in the context of adopting municipal regulations of general application, the process is governed by the enabling statutes, and it is not appropriate to import rules of procedural fairness akin to those in adjudicative or quasi-judicial processes. Here, the Municipality complied with its statutory obligations: notice of motion, adoption and presentation of the draft by-law, and passage of the final regulation at a public council meeting. The law does not require that citizens potentially affected by a by-law be consulted individually or given a formal right to be heard before adoption, and there was no breach of any applicable procedural rule.

Acquired rights and the ability to change fiscal policy

Finally, the Association claimed that the 27 owners enjoyed an acquired right that the snow-removal costs for the côte du Bateau would continue to be fully funded from the general property tax, as they allegedly had been since municipalisation. The Court dismissed this argument outright. It reiterated that a municipality always retains the right to modify its taxation or tarification schemes, and that a taxpayer cannot assert an acquired right to more favourable taxation or to the indefinite continuation of a particular fiscal structure. By changing to a partial user-pay model through a special sector tax, the Municipality was simply exercising its recognized power to adjust its fiscal policy over time.

Outcome and financial consequences

Having addressed all grounds, the Court concluded that the judicial review must fail. The Municipality had jurisdiction to impose the special sector tax; the application was filed well beyond the reasonable time contemplated by article 529 C.p.c. with no exceptional justification; the by-law was reasonable, non-discriminatory, and lawfully adopted; and the affected owners had no acquired right to continued funding of snow removal through the general tax base. The Court therefore dismissed the Association’s application and, under article 430 C.p.c., ordered costs of justice in favour of the defendant Municipality. No damages or specified lump-sum award was granted; only ordinary court costs were ordered, and the judgment does not state any exact monetary amount for those costs, which therefore cannot be determined from the decision itself.