Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A.G.E.F.A.C. sought judicial review of the Commission municipale du Québec's April 9, 2025 decision revoking its property tax exemption recognition.
• The applicable standard of review was the reasonableness standard as established by the Supreme Court in Vavilov.
• Central to the dispute was whether the student café's activities qualified as admissible under Article 243.8 of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale.
• Despite a consistent line of Commission jurisprudence granting exemptions to similar student associations, the Commission departed from that practice without adequate justification.
• Evidence presented by A.G.E.F.A.C. was uncontested, as the Ville de Montréal did not oppose the application or participate in the hearing.
• Returning the matter to the Commission was deemed unnecessary, as the outcome was sufficiently certain to allow the Superior Court to render the decision itself.

Facts of the case

The Association générale étudiante de la formation et de l'apprentissage continu (A.G.E.F.A.C.), a non-profit corporation incorporated under Part 3 of the Loi sur les compagnies, leases several spaces within the Université de Montréal located in the City of Montréal. These premises include a student café-bar called La Brunante, a bookkeeping office, a storage room, and two washrooms. Members of A.G.E.F.A.C. derive no personal benefit from these activities. On April 7, 2015, the Commission municipale du Québec had originally granted A.G.E.F.A.C. — then known as the Association générale des étudiants et étudiantes de la Faculté de l'éducation permanente (A.G.E.E.F.E.P.) — recognition for purposes of property tax exemption. Subject to periodic review under the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (LFM), the Commission subsequently held a hearing and, on April 9, 2025, issued a decision revoking that recognition. The Ville de Montréal did not oppose A.G.E.F.A.C.'s position and did not participate in the hearing, leaving the applicant's evidence uncontested.

The evidence before the Commission described the café's activities during the autumn of 2024 as representative of its social life. These included thirteen Montréal Canadiens hockey games and the U.S. election night broadcast on television screens; six evenings hosted by the Université de Montréal's improvisation league; four social 5 à 7s and two 4 à 7 welcome events for new students, including a DJ night; a musical comedy troupe performance; a beer launch with a guest artist; two Bols et Bolles quiz nights in the style of Génies en herbe; a Carnival evening organized by the Haitian students' association; a karaoke night; an open house day hosted by the admissions office featuring a brunch and a jazz trio; and use of the café's sound and lighting equipment by cinema students for academic film projects. The café employed six workers, described as being essentially students, and its food prices were described as competitive and adapted to student budgets.

Statutory framework

The property tax exemption at issue is governed by Article 243.8 of the LFM, which provides that a user must, on a non-profit basis, carry out one or more admissible activities such that they constitute the principal use of the property. Admissible activities under the provision include: the creation, exhibition, or presentation of a work in the field of art (provided it is offered to the public without preferential conditions); any informational or educational activity aimed at persons who, as a leisure activity, wish to improve their knowledge or skills in art, history, science, sport, or other leisure-related domains (again, offered to the public without preferential conditions); the rental of lodgings to students enrolled in designated educational institutions; and activities carried out to promote or defend the rights of persons forming a group, combat illegal discrimination, assist oppressed or economically disadvantaged persons, or prevent persons from falling into difficulty.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The Superior Court, presided over by Justice Stéphane Lacoste, applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov (2019 CSC 65), to which both parties agreed. Under this framework, a reasonable decision must be intrinsically coherent and justified in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints. The Court observed that while the Commission's reasoning appeared internally coherent and logical, it was nonetheless unreasonable because it failed to explain why it departed from its longstanding practice and consistent jurisprudence.

The Court reviewed several recent Commission decisions granting exemptions to comparable student associations and their cafés — including Association générale étudiante de Bois-de-Boulogne et Ville de Montréal (2023 CanLII 57525), Association générale des étudiants du Cégep de Rosemont et Ville de Montréal (2023 CanLII 65301), Syndicat étudiant du Cégep Marie-Victorin et Ville de Montréal (2024 CanLII 25543), and Association des étudiants du Cégep de Saint-Laurent inc. et Ville de Montréal (2024 CanLII 39958) — all of which applied the Commission's extensive prior jurisprudence to grant recognition. The Court noted that only one recent decision departed from these binding precedents, and it was rendered by the same administrative judge who issued the decision under review; that decision likewise failed to adequately justify the departure.

The Court found that the Commission had recited its jurisprudence without genuinely explaining why it did not apply it. The distinction the Commission drew between purely recreational activities and admissible ones — characterizing the café primarily as a food service and entertainment venue — was found to have no support in the Commission's own case law. Furthermore, the Court found that the Commission's conclusion fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes under both Dunsmuir and Vavilov, as it was inconsistent with the purpose and scope of the LFM.

Ruling and outcome

The Superior Court allowed A.G.E.F.A.C.'s application for judicial review of the Commission's April 9, 2025 decision. Given that remitting the matter to the Commission would have been futile and caused undue additional delay — and that the need for stability in public finances militated in favour of an immediate decision — the Court exercised its exceptional jurisdiction to render the decision the Commission ought to have rendered. A.G.E.F.A.C. was granted recognition for property tax exemption purposes in respect of the premises it occupies at 3200, rue Jean-Brillant, Montréal, comprising locals B-2326 and sub-locals B-2300-1, B-2300-2, B2326-1, and B2326-2. No specific monetary amount was awarded in damages; the relief granted was the recognition itself. Costs (frais de justice) were awarded in favour of A.G.E.F.A.C., though no specific amount was specified in the judgment.