Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision denying a stay of two municipal permit revocation and suspension orders.
   
• Employees faced imminent job losses if the underlying permit decisions took immediate effect.
   
• Fire risk from accumulated, undisposed materials factored into the urgency of the application.


• Two distinct three-part tests governed the analysis: the criteria for leave to appeal under article 31 para. 2 C.C.P. and the stay criteria under article 530 para. 2 C.C.P.
   
• Justice Healy declined to assess the merits of the underlying dispute at this preliminary stage.
   
• Consequences extended beyond Montreal to operations elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, supporting referral to a three-judge panel.
   

Facts of the case

The applicant, Compagnie américaine de fer & métaux inc., sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court (Boctor, J.), 2026 QCCS 1941, which had dismissed its application for a stay. That stay application arose within a broader judicial review proceeding challenging two decisions of the respondent, Ville de Montréal. The impugned decisions, dated April 22, 2026, were made by the Director of the Environment Department of the Ville de Montréal and revoked the atmospheric discharge permit for the applicant's Downstream 2 plant while suspending the atmospheric discharge permit for its "Texas"-type shredder. The applicant argued these measures would force it to cease a significant part of its operations. It further submitted that, absent a stay, a significant number of employees would lose their jobs at the beginning of July 2026, and that the accumulation of materials it could no longer dispose of created a significant fire risk. The Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal was named as an impleaded party.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec framed the analysis. Article 31 para. 2 C.C.P. governs leave to appeal from a judgment rendered during proceedings, permitting leave where the judgment decides part of the dispute or causes irreparable harm to a party. Article 530 para. 2 C.C.P. sets out the criteria for a stay of execution, which Justice Healy noted mirror those for an interlocutory injunction: colour of right, the existence of serious or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience. The application was also brought under articles 49, 351, 352, and 357 C.C.P., which concern the Court's general procedural powers and requests to shorten deadlines.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Healy found that the Superior Court's judgment had already undertaken a thorough study of the criteria for granting a stay under article 530 para. 2 C.C.P. Rather than revisiting that analysis on its merits, he focused on whether leave to appeal should be granted. He emphasized that the issues raised by the applicant were significant, citing the risk of job losses in early July 2026, the fire hazard posed by undisposed materials, and consequences reaching beyond Montreal into other parts of Quebec and Canada that a final judgment could not later remedy. He expressly declined to rule on the soundness of the Superior Court's reasons for refusing the stay, stating this was not his role at this stage. Instead, he concluded it was in the interest of justice for a three-judge panel to consider the questions raised, invoking Justice Kalichman's earlier observation, in a related 2025 decision involving the same applicant, that the speed with which an appeal can be heard supports granting leave in circumstances of this kind.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Healy granted the applicant's motion, allowing leave to appeal the Superior Court's refusal of a stay. He ordered a stay of execution of the April 22, 2026 municipal decisions revoking and suspending the applicant's atmospheric discharge permits, effective until the appeal is decided on the merits. The matter was set down for hearing on October 5, 2026, in Lamer courtroom, with the appellant's brief due July 23, 2026 and the respondent's brief due August 27, 2026, each limited to 15 pages; the appellant's brief must also include three annexes, and the respondent's brief may add a supplement to those annexes if necessary. No monetary award was made; costs were ordered to follow the outcome of the appeal, meaning the amount, if any, remains undetermined pending the final decision.