Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

City of Nanaimo, Appellant v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., Respondent

Pays/Territoire
Canada
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Mar 2, 2000
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of Canada
Juge
LHeureux-Dubé
Gonthier
McLachlin
Major
Bastarache
Binnie
Arbour
Numéro de référence
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 342
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives
Résumé
The respondent company leased a parcel of land located within the appellant city. The city granted a permit to the company to deposit 15,000 cubic yards of soil on its site to conduct soil processing operations. Neighboring residents complained about dust and noise emissions. The city council therefore passed resolutions declaring the pile of soil a nuisance pursuant to s. 936 of the Municipal Act and ordered the company to remove it. The company failed to comply. The city brought a petition for a declaration that it was entitled to access the property and remove the pile of soil. The petition was granted. The Court of Appeal allowed the company’s appeal and quashed the resolutions. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appeal should be allowed. It emphasized that section 936 of the Municipal Act empowered the city to issue resolutions declaring the company’s pile of soil a nuisance and ordering its removal. The two classes of nuisance outlined in the section were constructed or erected things, and watercourses. A pile of soil fell within the phrase “building, structure or erection of any kind” since it had to at least be erected and clearly could be a “hazardous erection” for example in the sense of reducing air quality through dust pollution. The decision in question was clearly adjudicative as it involved an adversarial hearing, the application of substantive rules to individual cases and a significant impact on the rights of the parties. A consideration of the relevant factors in this case militated against a deferential standard on the question of jurisdiction. Section 936 required the municipal council to apply principles of statutory interpretation in order to answer the legal question of the scope of its authority. On such questions, municipalities did not possess any greater institutional competence or expertise than the courts. Council decisions were necessarily motivated by political considerations and not by an entirely impartial application of expertise. As a result, the courts could review those jurisdictional questions on a standard of correctness. Here, the city was correct in construing s. 936 as extending to it jurisdiction to issue resolutions declaring the company’s pile of soil a nuisance and ordering its removal. Intra vires municipal decisions, however, had to be reviewed upon a deferential standard, as Municipal councils were elected representatives of their community and accountable to their constituents. Here, the city’s decision to declare the company’s pile of soil a nuisance was not patently unreasonable.
Texte intégral
2000scc13.html