Nanaimo v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. (2000), 251 N.R. 42 (SCC)
MLB Headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. MR.003
City of Nanaimo (appellant) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. (respondent)
(26786; 2000 SCC 13)
Indexed As: Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
March 2, 2000.
Summary:
Rascal Trucking leased land from Kismet Enterprises. Rascal obtained a permit from the municipality to deposit approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil on the land to conduct soil processing operations. Neighbouring residents complained about dust and noise. The municipality passed a resolution declaring the pile of soil to be a nuisance pursuant to s. 936 of the Municipal Act and ordered Kismet to remove the soil. Kismet did not comply. The municipality passed a second resolution ordering Rascal to remove the soil or it would be removed by the municipality at Rascal’s or Kismet’s cost. Neither Kismet not Rascal complied and Rascal denied access to agents of the municipality. The municipality sought a declaration that it was entitled to access the property to remove the soil.
The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the declaration. Rascal and Kismet petitioned to quash the resolutions.
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Rascal appealed both orders.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 109 B.C.A.C. 12; 177 W.A.C. 12, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders and quashed the resolutions. The municipality appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and reinstated the orders of the lower courts and the resolutions.
Municipal Law – Topic 1491
Powers of municipalities – Particular powers – Public nuisance – Rascal Trucking leased land from Kismet Enterprises – Rascal obtained a permit from the municipality to deposit approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil on the land to conduct soil processing operations – Neighbouring residents complained about dust and noise – The municipality passed two resolutions declaring the pile of soil to be a nuisance pursuant to s. 936 of the Municipal Act – The municipality ordered Kismet or Rascal to remove the soil or it would be removed by the municipality at Rascal’s or Kismet’s cost – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality was correct in construing that s. 936 gave it jurisdiction to issue resolutions declaring the pile of soil a nuisance and ordering its removal – Further, the municipality’s decision to declare the pile of soil a nuisance was not patently unreasonable – The pile of soil had serious and continuing effects upon the neighbouring community – It was an annoyance and a source of pollution.
Municipal Law – Topic 1491
Powers of municipalities – Particular powers – Public nuisance – Section 936 of the Municipal Act provided that a municipality could “declare a building, structure or erection of any kind, or a drain, ditch, watercourse, pond, surface water or other matter or thing”, a nuisance and order its removal – The Supreme Court of Canada applied a purposive interpretation and the ejusdem generis rule and held that “or other matter or thing” extended to the two classes of nuisances outlined before it, i.e., constructed or erected things and watercourses – The phrase did not allow municipalities to declare almost anything a nuisance – However, the court held that a pile of soil on private land fell within the phrase “building, structure or erection of any kind” – Therefore, s. 936 empowered the municipality to issue resolutions declaring the pile of soil a nuisance and order its removal – See paragraphs 14 to 26.
Municipal Law – Topic 1682
Powers of municipalities – Judicial review of exercise of powers – Scope of powers of judicial review – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the standard of review applicable to municipalities exercising an adjudicative function – The court held that on questions of jurisdiction and law the test was correctness – However, intra vires decisions of municipalities were to be reviewed upon the patently unreasonable standard – See paragraphs 27 to 38.
Statutes – Topic 2584
Interpretation – Interpretation of words and phrases – Ejusdem generis rule – When rule applies – General words following particular words – [See second
Municipal Law – Topic 1491
].
Cases Noticed:
Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 19].
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 20].
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d’alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].
Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 28].
Union des employés de services, local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298.
U.E.S. – see Union des employés de service.
Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 29].
Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].
Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].
Statutes Noticed:
Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 206, sect. 8 [para. 9].
Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, sect. 932(b)(i), sect. 936(1), sect. 936(3), sect. 936(5) [para. 9].
Statute Revision Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 440, sect. 8 [para. 9].
Counsel:
Guy E. McDannold, for the appellant;
Patrick G. Foy, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Staples McDannold Stewart, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Ladner Downs, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 3, 1999, by L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 2, 2000, Major, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
