Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• AIM sought a stay of two administrative decisions dated April 22, 2026, which revoked and suspended its atmospheric discharge permits for the Downstream 2 plant and the Texas shredder, respectively.
• Central to the dispute is the interpretation of Article 6.01 of the Regulation, which requires pollutants emanating from recycling activities to be captured and directed to an air purifier meeting an emission standard of 50 mg/m³.
• Documented exceedances of regulatory limits for airborne particles, arsenic, and PCB-42% CI — in some instances up to 30 times the allowable limit — formed the evidentiary basis for the permit decisions.
• Procedural fairness arguments raised by AIM, including alleged bias, lack of notice, and improper escalation of sanctions, were not supported by a prima facie review of the record.
• Weak prima facie appearance of right, combined with a strong public interest in atmospheric pollution control, weighed heavily against granting the exceptional remedy of a stay.
• AIM's own conduct — continuing to operate without implementing capture measures despite a prior refused stay application — further undermined its entitlement to the discretionary relief sought.

Facts of the case

Compagnie Américaine de Fer et de Métaux inc. (AIM) is a metal recycling company incorporated in 1936 that operates 130 sites across Canada, the United States, Europe, and South America, including 52 in Quebec. Its principal facility is a 47-hectare site in Montréal-Est, which AIM describes as the only installation on the island of Montreal where metal recycling is carried out through shredding, separation, and sorting processes. Because AIM's activities generate atmospheric pollutant emissions, they are subject to Regulation No. 2001-10 on atmospheric discharge (the Regulation), adopted by the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM) and administered by delegated authority through the City of Montreal (the City). AIM holds 16 atmospheric discharge permits issued under the Regulation, including the two permits at issue in this proceeding.

The Texas shredder — the central processing unit of the site — received its atmospheric discharge permit in 1999. It processes depolluted car bodies and mixed scrap metal through shredding and separation to recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals. AIM reports that the Texas shredder processes and recycles between 70 and 90 percent of its inputs, with remaining residue sent to downstream plants for further sorting. The Downstream 2 plant, for which AIM has held an atmospheric discharge permit since 2010 (permit 2381), processes small mixed materials containing non-ferrous metals (ASR) ranging between 0 and 100 mm in size, at a capacity of up to 120 tonnes per hour. It is the only non-ferrous downstream plant AIM operates in Canada.

Ambient air quality monitoring began at the site in 2017. From May 2020 onward, exceedances of the regulatory limit values under Article 3.03 of the Regulation were observed for particles, arsenic, and other metals. Between October 2021 and September 2024, the City sent AIM eight notices and emails identifying exceedances and demanding corrective action. Monitoring for PCBs commenced in May 2024. Samples collected in June 2024, when winds came from the site toward the sampler positioned near the Texas shredder, revealed exceedances of the regulatory limit for PCB-42% CI by up to 30 times the allowable norm. On March 10, 2025, the City sent AIM notices of intent to revoke permit 2381 and to suspend the Texas shredder permit. Following exchanges of observations and the City's offer to defer its decision until December 2025 on the condition that AIM file a unified permit application with a compliance plan and timeline, AIM submitted its unified permit application on November 28, 2025. On February 26, 2026, the Director rejected the application, noting that AIM's plan did not include modifications to capture and direct pollutants to an air purifier. On April 22, 2026, the Director issued the two contested decisions: Decision 1 revoking the Downstream 2 permit, and Decision 2 suspending the Texas shredder permit.

Regulatory framework and clauses at issue

The CMM holds jurisdiction over atmospheric pollution in the Montreal agglomeration by virtue of an exception decree. The Regulation governs the emission of pollutants from industrial and commercial activities within that territory. In 2022, the CMM amended the Regulation through Regulation 2022-99 to, among other things, add metal shredding, crushing, conveying, and recycling activities to the scope of Article 6.01, and to set the particle emission standard at 50 mg/m³. Article 6.01, as amended, provides that any pollutant emanating from equipment used in the activities listed in Table 6 must be captured and directed to a purifier that reduces its atmospheric emission to the concentration set out in the table — for the recycling industry, 50 mg/m³ for particles. Article 3.03 of the Regulation prohibits emitting atmospheric pollutants listed in Table 3.01 in quantities that contribute to concentrations measured at the property boundary exceeding the prescribed average values. Article 8.06.2 authorizes the Director to suspend or revoke a permit where, among other grounds, the permit holder breaches permit conditions or contravenes regulatory emission limits. Decision 1 was based on the first and second grounds under Article 8.06.2, while Decision 2 was based on the first, second, and fifth grounds (permit obtained or maintained on the basis of false or inaccurate information).

AIM contested the validity and interpretation of the amended Article 6.01, maintaining that the City must first establish that equipment exceeds the 50 mg/m³ emission standard before it can require capture and purification. The City's position is that capture and purification are integral to compliance itself, since measuring emissions requires that pollutants first be captured and channeled to a purifier for sampling. AIM had previously challenged Article 6.01 by way of a judicial review application filed in May 2024 and sought a stay of its application — a request refused both by the Superior Court and by the Court of Appeal (2025 QCCA 1187).

Court's reasoning and analysis

The Court applied the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction: (i) appearance of right; (ii) serious or irreparable harm; and (iii) balance of inconveniences in favor of the order sought, assessed holistically.

On appearance of right, the Court found it weak overall. AIM raised 14 grounds grouped into three categories: interpretation of Article 6.01, application of Article 3.03, and procedural fairness. On Article 6.01, the Court accepted that AIM's argument was not entirely frivolous, but noted that two years had passed since the 2022 amendment came into force on May 29, 2024, eroding the earlier argument that the compliance timeline was impossible to meet. AIM's position — that a pending judicial challenge suspends regulatory enforcement — was rejected as logically implying that its prior stay application had been unnecessary, and as effectively paralyzing administrative action. On Article 3.03 and the PCB evidence, the City produced two independent external studies: a statistical analysis showing a 70 percent frequency of limit exceedances over eight-hour periods and a correlation between PCB-42% CI, iron, and particles at sampling station ST1 indicating a common source; and a forensic analysis matching the chemical signature of PCBs in ambient air at ST1 to PCBs found in sediments from the Texas shredder cyclone. AIM submitted a preliminary expert report by Denis Choinière of firm AtmoDC, but the Court found it insufficiently detailed and divergent from the conclusions of Consulair — AIM's own sampling consultant since at least 2020 — without explanation. A second report by Sanexen evaluated human health risks from PCB exposure and concluded that concentrations posed no significant risk to health; however, the Court found this beside the point, as the decisions were based on regulatory emission exceedances rather than on a health-based power under the Regulation. On procedural fairness, the Court found no serious arguable issue: the record showed that the City had communicated its concerns to AIM from at least the autumn of 2020, provided multiple opportunities for corrective action, granted a six-month extension to file a unified permit application, and issued notices of intent in March 2025 before rendering the decisions in April 2026.

On serious or irreparable harm, the Court accepted that AIM would suffer considerable economic harm — including potential loss of clients and skilled workers — that could qualify as irreparable. It noted, however, that AIM's figures regarding indirectly affected employees lacked sufficient precision, and that its statements appeared contradictory regarding the viability of alternatives such as redirecting materials to its Lévis or Laval shredder facilities.

On the balance of inconveniences, the Court found that the public interest in atmospheric pollution control clearly outweighed AIM's private and third-party interests. The Regulation is a public interest law aimed at reducing atmospheric pollutants and protecting the environment. The Court noted that the exceedances at issue were not minor technical infractions but included near-systematic breaches of limits for particles, arsenic, and PCB-42% CI. AIM's argument that its recycling activities serve a competing public interest was found unsubstantiated — no evidence was presented regarding the capacity of Quebec landfill sites or the ability of AIM's competitors to absorb displaced volumes — and was directly contradicted by AIM's own acknowledgment that clients would turn to alternative suppliers. The anticipated duration of a stay of 12 to 18 months or longer, given the procedural timeline, further weighed against granting the remedy.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed AIM's application for a stay, with costs awarded against AIM. The Court further noted that AIM's own conduct — continuing to refuse implementation of capture and purification measures even after its earlier stay application had been refused — was an additional factor weighing against the grant of this exceptional discretionary remedy. The successful party was the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal and the City of Montreal. No monetary damages or award were ordered; while costs were granted against AIM, no specific amount was stated in the decision.