Robertson v. City of Montreal

Robertson v. City of Montreal

Majority held plaintiff lacked legal interest to sue because he had not alleged or proved any special or personal injury beyond the common public interest of all ratepayers; the appropriate remedy for alleged ultra vires municipal acts affecting the public is prosecution by the Attorney-General under art. 978 C.P.Q. or by statutory summary proceeding (section 304 of the Montreal charter); appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1915) 52 SCR 30
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Donald Robertson; Respondent / Defendant: City of Montreal; Respondent / Defendant: Canadian Autobus Company Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 October 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing, Ultra Vires, Exclusive Franchise, By Law Versus Resolution, Ratepayer Actions, Municipal Contracts, Public Highways, Attorney General Intervention (art. 978 C.p.q.)
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Standing Ultra Vires Exclusive Franchise By Law Versus Resolution Ratepayer Actions Municipal Contracts Public Highways +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Robertson

Appellant / Plaintiff

City of Montreal

Respondent / Defendant

Canadian Autobus Company Ltd.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff (ratepayer/shareholder) had standing to sue absent special or personal injury
  2. 2 Whether municipal council could grant an exclusive privilege to operate autobus lines
  3. 3 Whether such power, if it exists, required exercise by by-law rather than by resolution

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held plaintiff lacked legal interest to sue because he had not alleged or proved any special or personal injury beyond the common public interest of all ratepayers; the appropriate remedy for alleged ultra vires municipal acts affecting the public is prosecution by the Attorney-General under art. 978 C.P.Q. or by statutory summary proceeding (section 304 of the Montreal charter); appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Leave to appeal to the Privy Council refused December 18, 1915