Montreal (City of) v. Steckler, [1986] 2 SCR 571

Montreal (City of) v. Steckler, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 571

Henry Steckler and Arthur Steckler     Appellants

v.

The City of Montréal     Respondent

indexed as: montréal (city of) v. steckler

File No.: 17948.

*1986: April 28, 29.

*Present: Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest    JJ.

**Re‑hearing: 1986: November 4; 1986: November 27.

**Present: Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

                   Municipal law ‑‑ Real estate taxes ‑‑ Action for recovery ‑‑ Whether the phrase “any subsequent purchaser” in s. 792 of the Charter of the City of Montreal includes the purchaser in a judicial sale.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Charter of the City of Montreal, 1960, S.Q. 1959‑60, c. 102, s. 792.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1983] C.A. 215, reversing a judgment of the Municipal Court of Montréal (1979), 10 M.P.L.R. 34. Appeal dismissed.

                   Jacques Viau, Q.C., and André Comeau, for the appellants.

                   Serge Barrière and Neuville Lacroix, for the respondent.

                   English version of the judgment delivered by

1.                The Court‑‑We all agree with the Court of Appeal, [1983] C.A. 215, that the phrase "any subsequent purchaser" in s. 792 of the Charter of the City of Montreal, 1960, S.Q. 1959‑60, c. 102, includes the purchaser in a judicial sale, that the Charter makes no distinction in respect of the latter and that there is no reason to make a distinction where the law makes none. The Court does not rule on whether appellants could set up against respondent an estoppel which was rejected by the Court of Appeal and was not put forward by appellants. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

                   Solicitors for the appellants: Viau Hébert Denault, Montréal.

                   Solicitors for the respondent: Péloquin, Allard & Lacroix, Montréal.