Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• René Bernier challenged the validity of an expropriation notice issued by the Municipalité de Saint-Urbain on February 2, 2026, seeking its nullity and radiation.
• Procedural deficiency was the primary ground for dismissal, as the application was not served by a bailiff within the mandatory 30-day period under article 17 of the Loi concernant l'expropriation.
• Actual service by bailiff did not occur until April 8, 2026 — 65 days after the expropriation notice was transmitted — well beyond the statutory deadline.
• Failure to designate the Tribunal administratif du Québec as a party was found to be a correctable irregularity and not itself a basis for dismissal.
• All substantive arguments raised by Bernier were characterized as questions of opportunité (expediency), which courts cannot adjudicate in lieu of a municipal authority's discretion.
• No element in Bernier's application challenged the legality of the expropriation itself, rendering the claim inadmissible on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Facts of the case

René Bernier is the owner of a lot in the cadastre of Québec located within the district of Charlevoix. On January 26, 2026, the Municipalité de Saint-Urbain passed a resolution authorizing the expropriation of a portion of Bernier's property and the imposition of two servitudes for the passage of a stormwater drainage conduit. On February 2, 2026, the municipality formally transmitted an expropriation notice to Bernier, covering the acquisition of part of his land and the establishment of two permanent servitudes for the installation of stormwater pipes and drainage infrastructure.

On February 24, 2026, Bernier filed an application for the nullity and radiation of the expropriation notice and the servitudes. His son, Rémy Bernier, delivered the application directly to the municipality's office. Bernier's grounds included allegations that the chosen routes traversed an essential portion of his land, rendering future construction impossible and compromising its normal use; that no engineering report or comparative analysis had been provided to justify the chosen route as the only or least harmful option; that the decision was arbitrary and unsupported by any demonstration of genuine necessity; and that the projected servitudes would permanently compromise both the value and the constructible vocation of his property.

On March 10, 2026, the Municipalité de Saint-Urbain filed a motion to dismiss and for inadmissibility on three grounds: (1) the introductory application had not been served by a bailiff within the 30-day period prescribed by article 17 of the Loi concernant l'expropriation; (2) the Tribunal administratif du Québec had not been designated as a party; and (3) the substantive grounds raised by Bernier related only to questions of expediency (opportunité) rather than legality, and could not support a claim for nullity.

Statutory framework and procedural requirements at issue

The central procedural requirement at issue is found in article 17 of the Loi concernant l'expropriation (RLRQ, c. E-25), which provides that an expropriated party has 30 days from the date of expropriation to contest the expropriating authority's right to expropriate and to seek radiation of the expropriation notice by way of an application to the Superior Court of the district where the expropriated immovable is situated. The provision further mandates that the application must be served on both the expropriating party and the Tribunal administratif du Québec, and that the matter be heard and decided urgently. Service by bailiff is a strict statutory requirement, not a matter of procedural preference.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court identified three issues for analysis. On the first — absence of proper service — the court noted that it was admitted Bernier's application had not been served in accordance with article 17. The reason offered at the hearing was a desire to minimize legal costs, which the court found to be no valid justification for departing from the statutory requirement. The court adopted the reasoning from Paré Assurances et Services financiers inc. c. COS constructions inc. (2025 QCCS 2993), which held that the legislative requirement of service is imperative and admits of no interpretation: where the legislature mandates service by bailiff, the rule is a condition of validity, not a mere formality that can be waived on the basis of absence of prejudice. In the present case, it was only on April 8, 2026 — 65 days after the expropriation notice was transmitted — that a bailiff served the application. This was well outside the 30-day statutory window, rendering the application null and void.

On the second issue — failure to designate the Tribunal administratif du Québec — the court found this to be a correctable irregularity that did not, on its own, warrant dismissal of the introductory application.

On the third issue — the substantive arguments raised by Bernier — the court found that all of Bernier's grounds related exclusively to questions of opportunité, that is, the timing, location, and manner chosen by the public authority to carry out its expropriation project. Relying on the principles articulated in Ivanhoé inc. c. Ville de Sainte-Foy (J.E. 82-59 (C.S.)), the court reiterated that the Superior Court does not sit as an appellate body over municipal council decisions and cannot substitute its own judgment for the discretion lawfully exercised by the municipality. None of the elements in Bernier's application called into question the legality of the expropriation itself.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court, presided over by the Honourable Catherine La Rosa, J.C.S., granted the Municipalité de Saint-Urbain's motion to dismiss and declared Bernier's introductory application inadmissible. The municipality was the successful party. The judgment was rendered without costs (sans frais de justice), meaning no monetary award, costs, or damages were ordered against either party.