Germain v. Montreal (City), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1144
Daniel Germain, Nicolas Bougoulias,
Frank Scarpelli, Louise Coiteux Di Renzo
and Julieta Sousa Appellants
v.
The Attorney General of Quebec Respondent
and
The City of Montreal Mis en cause
and
The Attorney General for Ontario Intervener
and between
Daniel Germain, Nicolas Bougoulias,
Frank Scarpelli, Louise Coiteux Di Renzo
and Julieta Sousa Appellants
v.
The City of Montreal Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Quebec Mis en cause
and
The Attorney General for Ontario Intervener
Indexed as: Germain v. Montreal (City)
File No.: 24964.
1997: April 23.
Present: La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Constitutional law ‑‑ Division of powers ‑‑ Taxation ‑‑ Surtax on non-residential buildings within provincial jurisdiction since it is a direct tax raised for provincial purposes ‑‑ Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(2) .
Municipal law ‑‑ Taxation ‑‑ Surtax on non-residential buildings falling into category of land taxes.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Ontario Home Builders’ Association v. York Region Board of Education, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 929.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Constitution Act , 1867 , s. 92(2) .
APPEALS from judgments of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1995] R.J.Q. 2313, 30 M.P.L.R. (2d) 42, reversing a judgment of the Superior Court, [1993] R.J.Q. 2635, 17 M.P.L.R. (2d) 229, that had granted in part a petition for nullity and for a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation and the municipal by-law of the City of Montreal respecting the surtax on non-residential buildings. Appeals dismissed.
Jérôme Choquette, Q.C., and Julius H. Grey, for the appellants.
Monique Rousseau, Marie‑Andrée Gauthier and Lucien Bélanger, for the respondent/mis en cause the Attorney General of Quebec.
Serge Barrière, for the mise en cause/respondent the City of Montreal.
Michel Y. Hélie, for the intervener.
//La Forest J.//
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1 La Forest J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that these appeals should be dismissed. The taxes whose validity is impugned are direct taxes raised for provincial purposes within the meaning of s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
2 In the circumstances, these taxes fall into the category of true land taxes and can be distinguished from that in issue in Ontario Home Builders’ Association v. York Region Board of Education, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 929. We consider the other arguments raised to be without merit.
3 For these reasons the appeals are dismissed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellants: Choquette Rhéaume, Montreal.
Solicitors for the respondent/mis en cause the Attorney General of Quebec: Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal.
Solicitors for the mis en cause/respondent the City of Montreal: Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney, Montreal.
Solicitor for the intervener: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Email this Content