Ville de Chicoutimi v. Légaré

Ville de Chicoutimi v. Légaré

The majority held that the post-1892 excavations and constructions were not mere repairs but new works/extension that fell outside the scope of the 1890 resolution and the original completion condition; the resolution together with the applicant's written request constituted a written contract under art.1033a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 329
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: La Ville de Chicoutimi; Respondent/defendant: Jérémie Légaré
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed and judgment of Superior Court reinstated
Legal Topics
Waterworks, Injunction, Written Contract, Ultra Vires, Highways and Streets, Repairs Vs. New Works
Source Language
english
Municipal Law Property Law Civil Procedure Public Nuisance Law Waterworks Injunction Written Contract Ultra Vires +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

La Ville de Chicoutimi

Appellant/plaintiff

Jérémie Légaré

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post-1892 works were repairs or new/extended works outside the original permission
  2. 2 Whether the council resolution and the applicant's written application constituted a "contract in writing" under art.1033a C.C.P.
  3. 3 Whether an injunction is an appropriate remedy for alleged public nuisances affecting streets under municipal control

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the post-1892 excavations and constructions were not mere repairs but new works/extension that fell outside the scope of the 1890 resolution and the original completion condition; the resolution together with the applicant's written request constituted a written contract under art.1033a C.C.P., and breach of its terms warranted an injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out the new works.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed and judgment of Superior Court reinstated

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) reversed
  • Judgment of the Superior Court reinstated, making permanent the injunction restraining the respondent from carrying on the specified works in the town streets