Bisaillon v. City of Montreal

Bisaillon v. City of Montreal

Majority held the special statute confined the City's power to acquire only lands 'needed' for the boulevard; because the original notice/plan attempted to take more land and contained serious errors as to the substance of the object, the City was within its right and duty to desist and confine expropriation to the necessary lands; discontinuance/amendment was permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure applied to the general expropriation law; appeal dismissed (Idington J. dissenting).

Citation
(1918) 58 SCR 24
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Maria Bisaillon; Respondent / Defendant: City of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 1918
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed; Idington J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Notice of Expropriation, Discontinuance/desistance, Ultra Vires, Mandamus Versus Injunction, Amendment of Expropriation Plan, Appointment of Arbitrators
Source Language
English
Expropriation Municipal Law Property Law Procedural Law Notice of Expropriation Discontinuance/desistance Ultra Vires Mandamus Versus Injunction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Bisaillon

Appellant / Plaintiff

City of Montreal

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expropriating municipality may desist or amend proceedings after serving a notice and appointing arbitrators when a serious error in the notice or plan is discovered
  2. 2 Whether the City exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to expropriate more land than was 'needed' under the special statute (ultra vires)
  3. 3 Whether the proper remedy for the landowner is mandamus to compel the expropriator to proceed or an injunction to restrain new proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the special statute confined the City's power to acquire only lands 'needed' for the boulevard; because the original notice/plan attempted to take more land and contained serious errors as to the substance of the object, the City was within its right and duty to desist and confine expropriation to the necessary lands; discontinuance/amendment was permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure applied to the general expropriation law; appeal dismissed (Idington J. dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed; Idington J. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed