On December 15, 2020, the Quebec Court of Appeal issued an important judgment concerning the short six-month time limitation period of s. 586 of the Cities and Towns Act [CTA] in Ville de Brossard c. Belmamoun, 2020 QCCA 1718.
In August 2013, Plaintiffs Mohamed Belmamoun and Gaétan L’Heureux filed a Motion for authorization to institute a class action against the City of Brossard, alleging that the development of a commercial district located on its territory caused neighbourhood annoyances and/or the unlawful infringement of their rights (right to environmental quality and the peaceful enjoyment of property guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms), due to the excessive flow of traffic circulating on a residential boulevard. The action was authorized in 2017 by the Court of Appeal.
The Plaintiffs were claiming compensatory damages for each member of the certified class in the amount of $10,000, and exemplary damages in the amount of $5,000, for each of the three years preceding the filing of the Claim, and until the cessation of the unlawful infringement of their rights and/or the abnormal neighbourhood disturbances and inconveniences, with interest since the summons.
In its Plea, the City of Brossard announced its intention to plead the six-month statute of limitation, as per section 586 CTA. Alternatively, the three-year statute limitation of article 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec should apply. The City argued that the starting point of the limitation period should be the year 2009 since, according to the evidence, it was at that time that the prejudice appeared itself in a significant way.
According to the Plaintiffs, the exception provided by article 2930 of the Civil Code of Quebec in matters of bodily injury should be applied. In addition, they alleged the continuous and repetitive nature of the disorder.
The issue of time limitation was split from the main proceedings pursuant to an Order of the Case Management judge.
The Superior Court judge, based on recent case law, held that the Plaintiffs were not alleging bodily injury, but rather mental or psychological injury, thus the exception of article 2930 of the Civil Code of Quebec did not apply.
The judge then turned to the starting point of the limitation period. He concluded that the members of the certified class were entitled to claim compensation for the injury suffered from August 12, 2010 (three years before the filing of the Motion to authorize a class action) until the date of a possible judgment on the merits.
Finally, the trial judge held that the various liability regimes at issue, namely the Environmental Quality Act, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec all incorporated the same limitation period, i.e. three years.
This decision was appealed by the City of Brossard and the Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal on the issue of bodily injury.
First, the Court of Appeal expressed serious concerns about the decision to split the proceedings, stating that in this case, the Court’s power to do so had been misused. On the characterization of the continuing nature of the damages, the Court also indicated that the issue should be decided after a debate on the merits.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Order of the Case Management Judge with respect to the application of the six-month limitation period under section 586 CTA. With respect to compensatory damages claimed under the Environmental Quality Act and the free enjoyment of property pursuant to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Court stated that they are not among the exceptions to short time limitation period of section 586 CTA. On this point, the Court cites its earlier case of Jalbert (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Jalbert) c. Ville de Montréal (Service de police de la Ville de Montréal), 2019 QCCA 1435):
| [64] The text of article 586, when compared with the previous versions of the legislative provisions enacting this short time limit demonstrates, in my opinion, the legislature’s intention to no longer restrict the scope of the short six-month limit to specifically municipal remedies and to broaden it to include all actions for damages, with the exception, of course, of actions for damages for bodily injury (2930 C.C.Q.) and actions of a contractual nature. [Our translation] |
As for the application of the limitation period for neighbourhood disturbances, the Court also relied on the same decision to conclude that the short limitation period of section 586 CTA must apply here, since imposing abnormal or excessive annoyances gives rise to a civil remedy only because it constitutes an illegality within the meaning of section 586 CTA.
This judgment confirms the recent trend in the case law to restrict the exceptions to the short time limitations of the Cities and Towns Act.