Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of a single judge of the Court of Appeal to stay expropriation proceedings after leave to appeal had been refused was the central question.
   
• Section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act confers broad stay powers, but the judge found that the orders sought were not in the nature of a stay.
   
• Ownership of the land had already passed to the City on August 30, 2026 under s. 38 of the Act respecting expropriation, before the application was presented.
   
• Safeguard measures aimed at preserving the status quo were unavailable because leave to appeal had been dismissed.
   
• An agreement recorded on February 16, 2026, under which the City would voluntarily suspend the expropriation if a Supreme Court leave application was filed, preceded the City's later filing of a notice of transfer.
   
• Damages of $4,000 for abuse of procedure could not be awarded because the Court was not seized of a file.
   

Facts of the case

Ville de Châteauguay sent a notice of expropriation on November 13, 2024 concerning land owned by 119390 Canada inc. The company believed the City was acting in bad faith and applied to the Superior Court under s. 17 of the Act respecting expropriation to annul the notice. That application was dismissed in 2025 QCCS 4354, and leave to appeal under s. 19 of the Act was refused in 2026 QCCA 5.

The company intended to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada and, before doing so, filed a motion to suspend the execution of a judgment. When the motion was presented on February 16, 2026, the parties agreed that if the leave application was filed, the City would voluntarily suspend the expropriation proceedings, without admission, until the Supreme Court's final decision. Failing such an application, the file would proceed once the deadline to seek leave had expired. On consent, the motion was struck from the roll. The company then filed its leave application and discontinued the motion.

On July 9, 2026, the City informed the company, for reasons of its own, that it intended to file a notice of transfer with a release date of August 30, 2026. Its position was that the company would suffer no prejudice, because the immovable would be retroceded if the company succeeded before the Supreme Court. City counsel repeated this position before the judge. The notice of transfer was filed on July 14, 2026. By the time the company's stay application came before the Court on September 2 and 3, 2026, the release date had already passed.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 38, para. 1 of the Act respecting expropriation provides that the expropriating party becomes the holder of the expropriated right on the release date entered on the notice of transfer of right. The company relied on article 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act and s. 19 of the expropriation statute. At the hearing, it added that the orders could also rest on articles 49 and 378 C.C.P.

It sought three orders. The first was a declaration that the expropriation proceedings before the Tribunal administratif du Québec in file SAI-M-338134-2411 were suspended until the Supreme Court's final decision. The second was a declaration that the notice of transfer published against lot 5 672 635 of the cadastre of Québec would not transfer ownership of the lot to the City on August 30, 2026. The third was a declaration that notifying and publishing the notice of transfer was abusive, along with an order that the City pay $4,000 in damages to compensate the company's fees and disbursements.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Christian Immer held that a single judge of the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant these measures. Section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act confers broad power to stay proceedings pending before lower courts whose decisions are at the centre of the dispute, citing Daniel c. Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire, 2021 QCCA 515. Even so, the conclusions sought were not in the nature of a stay. Their effect would instead be to deprive of effect a transfer of ownership that had already occurred by operation of the expropriation statute.

The judge added that, even if the conclusions were treated as an attempt to preserve the status quo, safeguard measures cannot be ordered once leave to appeal has been dismissed, relying on Mateluna-Ahumada c. Ville de Charlemagne, 2024 QCCA 285. Because the Court was not seized of a file, he also had no jurisdiction to award damages for abuse of procedure, citing Fortin c. Cameron, 2023 QCCA 85 by analogy. He expressed no view on whether other remedies might exist, stating only that this was not the proper forum.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Immer dismissed the application to stay the expropriation proceeding before the Tribunal administratif du Québec with legal costs, leaving Ville de Châteauguay as the successful party. No part of the company's $4,000 damages claim was granted, and the judgment does not specify an amount for the legal costs awarded to the City.