Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy of the plaintiff’s documentary proof regarding permit applications, municipal decisions, and alleged delays in processing.
• Need to formally prove municipal by-laws and policies of Bonsecours because they are not judicially noticed under the Code municipal du Québec.
• Scope of the Small Claims Division judge’s case management powers under articles 540 and 158(1) C.p.c. to order production of documents and manage the instance.
• Relevance of internal municipal records, correspondence, and registry entries to establish the chronology of events and any potential fault by the inspector.
• Impact of incomplete and irregular documents (partial permit, informal “mise en demeure,” unsigned variance request) on the court’s ability to assess liability and damages.
• Procedural consequences and further case management steps if the defendant fails to produce the ordered documents within the prescribed 45-day period.

Factual background

Lucien Pellerin, the plaintiff, brings a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against Timothé Breton, who was acting as an inspector in urban planning and environment for the municipality of Bonsecours at the material time. Pellerin seeks $1,375 in damages. The amount claimed represents alleged additional heating costs and loss of enjoyment arising from delays and obstacles in the processing of his municipal construction permits and a request for a minor variance (“dérogation mineure”). The factual core of the dispute is the handling of several municipal permit applications and a minor variance request. Pellerin alleges that Breton blocked or unduly delayed these processes, notably by taking more than three months to issue certain permits despite what Pellerin says is a 30-day processing timeframe used by the municipality. The alleged 30-day period is said to derive from a municipal bulletin of Bonsecours, but that bulletin is not produced in evidence. At the hearing, the defendant Breton does not appear. The court therefore proceeds by default but reminds Pellerin that, even in the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff retains the burden to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities and must substantiate his claim with adequate evidence.

Evidence presented and initial judicial concerns

Pellerin testifies and files a handful of documents: a document labelled as a “mise en demeure,” one page (page 2 of 5) of a construction/expansion permit, a photograph, and a written request described as a “demande de dérogation mineure.” On their face, these pieces are incomplete or irregular. The permit extract is only one page out of five, leaving out key portions of the document such as conditions, dates, or complete identification details. The minor variance request is a half-page continuous text that is not addressed to anyone and is unsigned. Likewise, the “mise en demeure” does not bear the usual formal characteristics that such a demand letter would typically have. Beyond these deficiencies, Pellerin testifies that he submitted several applications, exchanged numerous emails with Breton, and received written responses on the completeness and admissibility of his demands. He also states that permits were eventually issued after a significant delay. However, he files none of the email exchanges, none of the final or interim written decisions of the municipality on his applications, and no complete copies of the permits that he says were ultimately granted. The court notes that, in the absence of these materials, it cannot reliably reconstruct the chronology of events or assess, in a concrete and precise way, whether any fault was committed by Breton in the exercise of his duties.

Municipal law and the proof of by-laws

An important legal point arises regarding the proof of municipal norms. Pellerin’s theory presupposes the existence of a 30-day processing deadline applicable to permit and variance requests. He refers to a municipal bulletin from Bonsecours and implicitly to municipal regulations that would impose such a rule. However, no bulletin and no by-law text is filed. The court stresses that Bonsecours is governed by the Code municipal du Québec, not the Loi sur les cités et villes. Under the Loi sur les cités et villes, municipal by-laws, once promulgated, are treated as public law within the municipality and can be judicially noticed without formal proof. In contrast, the Code municipal du Québec does not contain an equivalent provision. As a result, for municipalities subject to the Code municipal du Québec, such as Bonsecours, the party who invokes a municipal regulation must plead it and prove it in evidence; the court does not take notice of it on its own motion as if it were part of the general law of Québec. Because these local regulations have strictly local reach, they are not considered “droit en vigueur au Québec” within the meaning of article 2807 of the Civil Code of Québec. Consequently, without the relevant by-laws and any policy documents on processing times being filed, the court cannot simply assume that a 30-day rule governed the inspector’s conduct or that a breach of such a standard occurred.

Case management framework and powers of the court

Faced with this evidentiary gap, the court turns to its case management powers rather than immediately dismissing the action. Article 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court, at any stage of the instance, to take appropriate management measures, even on its own initiative, including convening a case management conference, hearing preliminary applications, and issuing any useful order. Article 158(1) C.p.c. expressly authorizes the court to set the modalities and deadlines for disclosure of documents and other evidence between the parties. Jurisprudence, including the Respecs inc. v. Marchés Pépin inc. decision, underscores that proper management of judicial resources and effective access to justice are key objectives and that judges, including those in the Small Claims Division, are equipped with tools to tailor proportional management measures to the needs of the case. In this file, the judge emphasizes that rejecting Pellerin’s claim outright at this stage, solely because his initial documentary proof is lacking, would be disproportionate. Instead, the court elects to postpone the hearing and to issue detailed management orders directing the defendant to produce the missing documents. This approach reflects the judge’s duty to provide fair and impartial assistance to both parties, particularly in the context of small claims where litigants are self-represented, in order to ensure that the applicable law can be properly ascertained and enforced.

Ordered production of municipal records

The court identifies that most of the essential documents are in the possession of the municipality of Bonsecours, which employs Breton as inspector. Under article 202 of the Code municipal du Québec, the clerk-treasurer (or clerk-treasurer’s office) is authorized to certify all books, registers, archives, documents, and papers kept by the municipality. To preserve the integrity and completeness of the record, the court orders Breton, in his capacity as inspector for Bonsecours at the time of the events, to produce into the court file, within 45 days of the judgment, a comprehensive set of documents. This package includes: all complete permit applications submitted by Pellerin in 2023 and 2024, with filing dates, annexes, plans, forms, and any supplementary information requested; all written decisions, whether interim or final, issued by Bonsecours regarding those applications, with reasons and dates; all email exchanges and written communications between Pellerin and any municipal representative in relation to these files; all applicable municipal by-laws, including those dealing with timelines for processing permit or variance requests, plus any relevant administrative policy; any internal documents, analytical sheets, or municipal registers concerning the processing of Pellerin’s applications; and any resolutions of the municipal planning advisory committee and of the municipal council relating specifically to Pellerin’s minor variance application. At the same time, the court directs the court clerk to transmit a copy of the judgment to both parties at their residential and email addresses, and also to the municipality of Bonsecours itself, to ensure that all relevant actors are informed of the obligations arising from the order.

Next procedural steps and absence of a determination on the merits

The judgment then sets out the next steps for the conduct of the case, while expressly refraining from addressing the substantive merits. Once the documents are received, the clerk is to schedule a new hearing date so that the matter can proceed with a complete evidentiary record. If Breton fails to supply the required documents within the 45-day time limit, the clerk must instead schedule a case management conference in civil practice chambers. This conference would allow the court to address the non-compliance and consider any further procedural measures that may be necessary. Importantly, the judge explicitly states that these case management measures are ordered solely to put the file in proper state for adjudication and do not in any way prejudge the validity of Pellerin’s claim or Breton’s defence. The judge also notes that he is withdrawing from (dessaisit) the file after issuing this procedural decision, meaning another judge will ultimately hear the merits.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary award

In this particular judgment, there is no final determination on liability, no finding of fault against either party, and no conclusion on whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages. The only “outcome” at this stage is a set of case management orders compelling the defendant, in his role as municipal inspector, to produce a wide range of municipal records, and directing the clerk on how to move the file forward procedurally. As a result, there is currently no successful party in the sense of a party who has prevailed on the merits of the dispute. Although Pellerin seeks $1,375 for alleged additional heating costs and loss of enjoyment, the court has not yet granted or denied that amount. No damages, costs, or other monetary sums are awarded in this judgment, and the total amount, if any, that may eventually be ordered in favour of a successful party cannot be determined from this decision alone.