2014 QCCA 136, 2014 QCCA 136

Unofficial English Translation Montréal (Ville de) c. Agence métropolitaine de transport 2014 QCCA 136 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-022557-128 (M.M.C. 606-005-742) DATE: JANUARY 28, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. VILLE DE MONTRÉAL APPELLANT – Applicant v.

AGENCE MÉTROPOLITAINE DE TRANSPORT RESPONDENT – Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Montreal Municipal Court (the Honourable Denis Laliberté), rendered on March 9, 2012, that dismissed its action against the respondent. [ 2 ] For the reasons of Bich J.A., with which Dufresne and Kasirer, JJ.A., agree, THE COURT : [ 3 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. Mtre Philippe Berthelet DAGENAIS, GAGNIER, BIRON For the appellant Mtre William J.

Atkinson Mtre Shaun Finn McCARTHY TÉTRAULT For the respondent Date of hearing: December 4, 2013 REASONS OF BICH J.A.

[ 4 ] For the purpose of extending the subway to Laval, from 2003 to 2006, the respondent Agence métropolitaine de transport (the “Agency”), used certain public spaces (parts of a park and of streets) of the appellant Ville de Montréal (the “City”). The appellant seeks a fee of $976,073.03 from the respondent as consideration. [ 5 ] The City bases its claim on

section 67 of

Schedule C of its incorporating statute and on certain provisions of its By-law concerning the occupancy of public property and its By-law concerning fees (fiscal 2003 to 2006): Charter of Ville de Montréal , R.S.Q., c. C-11.4 67.

La ville peut, par règlement : 1° autoriser l'occupation du domaine public à certaines fins; 2° fixer les conditions de telles autorisations, dans chaque cas ou dans des règles d'application générale, selon qu'elle le juge opportun; 3° imposer, en vue d'une telle autorisation, l'obtention d'un permis, renouvelable périodiquement ou non; […] 8° exiger, en contrepartie de toutes occupations du domaine public, le paiement, en un ou plusieurs versements, d'un prix qu'il fixe dans chaque cas ou selon des critères qu'il établit; […] Le prix exigible en vertu du paragraphe 8 du premier alinéa pour l'occupation du domaine public est garanti par une hypothèque légale sur l'immeuble pour l'utilité duquel l'occupation du domaine public a été permise.

Les dispositions relatives à la perception des taxes foncières s'appliquent à la perception de ce prix. 67.

The city may, by by-law, (1) authorize occupation of the public domain for certain purposes; (2) establish the conditions for such authorizations for each case or by general rules, as it sees fit; (3) prescribe that a permit, which may or may not be renewable periodically, must be obtained to secure such authorization; … (8) require, in consideration for any occupation of the public domain, the payment, in a single payment or in instalments, of a price to be fixed by the city in each case or according to the criteria it determines; and … The price payable under subparagraph 8 of the first paragraph for the occupation of the public domain is secured by a legal hypothec on the immovable for the use of which the occupation of the public domain was allowed.

The provisions related to the collection of property taxes shall apply to the collection of that price. By-law concerning the occupancy of public property , R.B.C.M., c. O-0.1 SOUS-SECTION 2 AUTORISATION 2. L'occupation du domaine public est interdite sans une autorisation conforme au présent règlement. SUBSECTION 2 AUTHORIZATION 2. No public property may be occupied without an authorization in accordance with this by-law. SOUS-SECTION 7 GENRES D'OCCUPATION […] 20.

Une occupation du domaine public pour une période continue de plus d'un an est une occupation permanente et, sous réserve de la sous-section 4, le permis qui s'y rattache est valide tant que les conditions de sa délivrance ne sont pas modifiées et que le prix du droit d'occuper le domaine public est acquitté en conformité avec les exigences des règlements sur les tarifs applicables à chaque exercice financier à l'égard duquel ce prix est exigible. SUBSECTION 7 TYPES OF OCCUPANCI ES … 20.

The occupancy of public property for a continuous period of more than a year is a permanent occupancy and, subject to subsection 4, the relevant permit is valid as long as its issue conditions are not amended and that fees for the right to occupy public property are paid in accordance with the by-law concerning fees that apply to every fiscal year for which those fees are payable .

SOUS-SECTION 9 TARIFICATION

Sous réserve du deuxième alinéa et sauf dans les cas où une somme due en vertu du présent règlement est, conformément au présent règlement, payée au moment de la demande d'autorisation ou de la délivrance du permis, cette somme doit être payée au plus tard 30 jours après l'expédition du compte qui en exige le paiement. À ce terme, l'intérêt sur toute somme due à la Ville s'applique, au taux et selon la méthode de calcul prévus aux règlements.

Dans les cas où le règlement sur les tarifs fixe une date d'exigibilité pour une somme due en vertu du présent règlement à l'égard d'une période d'occupation subséquente à la première, l'intérêt sur toute somme due à la Ville s'applique aux taux et selon la méthode de calcul prévus aux règlements. SUBSECTION 9 FEES 23. Subject to the second paragraph and except where fees due under this by- law are, in accordance with this by-law, paid at the time of an application for authorization or issue of a permit, those fees must be paid no more than 30 days after an account is sent.

At the end of that period, interest on any amount due to the city applies, at the rate and according to the calculation method provided for in by-laws . Where a maturity date for fees due under this by-law with respect to an occupancy period subsequent to the first is set in the by-law concerning fees, the interest on fees due to the city applies, at the rate and according to the calculation method provided for in by-laws .

27. Lorsque l'occupation est autorisée pour l'utilité d'un immeuble dont le terrain est contigu à la

partie du domaine public occupée, la valeur du domaine public est déterminée en lui attribuant celle de ce terrain inscrite au rôle de l'évaluation foncière pour l'exercice financier en cours lors de la délivrance du permis. Lorsque l'occupation n'est pas autorisée pour l'utilité d'un immeuble ou lorsque l'immeuble pour l'utilité duquel elle est autorisée comporte plus d'un terrain, la valeur du domaine public est déterminée en lui attribuant la valeur moyenne de celles de tous les terrains contigus à la

partie du domaine public occupée, inscrites au rôle de l'évaluation foncière pour l'exercice en cours lors de la délivrance du permis. La valeur obtenue par l'application du premier ou du deuxième alinéa, selon le cas, est ensuite reportée, à tant le mètre carré, sur la superficie de la

partie occupée. Lorsque la valeur de la

partie du domaine public occupée, calculée conformément aux premier, deuxième et troisième alinéas, est supérieure ou inférieure à sa valeur réelle compte tenu de facteurs tels que la dimension de la

partie occupée, sa configuration, l'usage qui peut en être fait, la qualité du sol, les installations et services municipaux qui s'y trouvent ou s'y trouveront aux fins de l'occupation demandée, et la situation de l'occupation en sous-sol, au sol ou au- dessus du sol, cette valeur peut être réduite ou majorée en considération de tels facteurs. 27.

Where an occupancy is authorized for the use of an immovable whose land is next to the occupied part of public property, the value of public property is determined by pricing it at the value of the land entered on the property assessment roll for the current fiscal year when the permit is issued.

Where an occupancy is not authorized for the use of an immovable or where an immovable for whose use it is authorized is made up of more than one lot, the value of public property is determined by pricing it at the average value of all lots next to the occupied part of public property, entered on the property assessment roll for the current fiscal year when the permit is issued . The value obtained under the first or second paragraph, as the case may be, is then carried over, so much a square metre, to the area of the occupied part .

Where the value of the occupied part of public property, calculated in accordance with the first, second and third paragraphs, is higher or lower than its actual value, considering factors such as the size of the occupied part, its configuration, the proposed use, the soil quality, the facilities and municipal services situated or to be situated there for the purposes of the proposed occupancy, and the location of the underground, on the ground or aboveground occupancy, that value may be reduced or increased because of such factors.

By-law concerning fees (fiscal 2003) , Ville de Montréal, By-law 02-258 Vu la Charte de la Ville de Montréal (L.R.Q.,

chapitre C-11.4 ), notamment les articles 4 et 84 de cette loi; Vu les articles 244.1 à 244.10 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (L.R.Q.,

chapitre F-2.1 ); À l'assemblée du 20 décembre 2002, le conseil de la Ville de Montréal décrète : […] In view of sections 4 and 84 of the Charter of the City of Montréal ( R.S.Q.,

chapter C-11.4 ); In view of sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation (R.S.Q.,

chapter F-2.1 ); At the Montréal city council meeting of December 20, 2002, it was enacted that: …

CHAPITRE IV UTILISATION DU DOMAINE PUBLIC […] 41. Aux fins de ce règlement, il sera perçu, pour une occupation périodique ou permanente du domaine public, 15 % de la valeur de la

partie du domaine public occupée.

CHAPTER IV USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY … 41. For the purposes of that by-law, the fees for the periodic or permanent occupancy of public property are 15% of the value of part of the public property occupied. [ 6 ] It should be noted that the fees set out in

section 41 of the aforementioned by-law for fiscal 2003, are found, for 2004, in

section 54 of the By-law concerning fees (fiscal 2004), [1] which has a similar

preamble. They are then found in

section 32 of the By-law

concerning fees (fiscal 2005) for the borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville [2] and, finally, in

section 31 of the By-law concerning fees (fiscal 2006) for the same borough. [3] The

preamble for these last two by-laws does not mention the Act respecting municipal taxation [4] and refers only to

section 145 of the Charter of Ville de Montréal (which provides the mode of tariffing which may be used by a borough council). [ 7 ] The Agency defends itself against the City’s claim first by arguing its status as a mandatary of the State, which gives it immunity from statutory and regulatory provisions other than those of the general law and consequently exempts it from the fees that the City seeks to levy against it. This status as a mandatary of the State is conferred by

section 2 of its incorporating statute, and according to

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act : 42. Nulle loi n'a d'effet sur les droits de l'État, à moins qu'ils n'y soient expressément compris. De même, nulle loi d'une nature locale et privée n'a d'effet sur les droits des tiers, à moins qu'ils n'y soient spécialement mentionnés. 42. No statute shall affect the rights of the State, unless they are specially included. Similarly, no statute of a local and private nature shall affect the rights of third parties, unless specially mentioned therein. [ 8 ] Since it is not contemplated by the Charter of Ville de Montréal , the Agency is therefore exempt from any fees set out in this particular statute. [ 9 ] Furthermore, the Agency adds,

section 74 of its incorporating statute exempts it from any tariff of user fees under sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation and, it maintains, the amounts claimed by the City are precisely such a tariff. [ 10 ] Here are the relevant excerpts from the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport : [5] 2. L'Agence est mandataire de l'État . Ses biens font

partie du domaine de l'État mais l'exécution des obligations de l'Agence peut être poursuivie sur les biens de celle-ci. 2. The Agency is a mandatary of the State . The property of the Agency forms part of the domain of the State, but the execution of the obligations of the Agency may be levied against its property. 21.

L'Agence a pour mission de soutenir, développer, coordonner et promouvoir le transport collectif, dont les services spéciaux de transport pour les personnes handicapées, d'améliorer les services de trains de banlieue, d'en assurer le développement, de favoriser l'intégration des services entre les différents modes de transport et d'augmenter l'efficacité des corridors routiers. 21.

The objects of the Agency are to support, develop, coordinate and promote shared transportation, including special transportation services for the handicapped, to improve suburban train services and ensure their development, to foster the integration of the services provided by various modes of transportation and to increase the efficiency of traffic corridors.

27. L'Agence a compétence sur le transport métropolitain par autobus et cette compétence a primauté sur celle de toute autorité organisatrice de transport en commun. L'Agence a aussi compétence sur tout prolongement du métro et, dans la mesure prévue par la présente loi, sur son financement et sur son exploitation . Elle peut également contracter avec des titulaires de permis de taxi afin d'assurer en son nom un service de transport collectif par taxi sur tout ou

partie de son territoire. Elle peut aussi conclure avec toute personne une entente favorisant le covoiturage et l'utilisation de tout mode de transport collectif. Par « transport métropolitain par autobus », on entend tout ou

partie d'un service de transport en commun, reconnu par l'Agence après consultation du conseil de la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, qui permet à une personne de se déplacer d'un territoire municipal à un autre, sauf si ces territoires font

partie de celui d'une même autorité organisatrice de transport en commun et par « autobus », on entend tant un autobus qu'un minibus au sens du Code de la sécurité routière (chapitre C-24.2 ). 27. The Agency has authority over metropolitan transportation by bus and its authority takes precedence over the authority of any public transit operating authority. The Agency also has authority over any extension of the subway and, to the extent provided for in this Act, over its financing and operation .

It may also enter into contracts with taxi permit holders to provide, on its behalf, shared transportation service by taxi on all or part of its area of jurisdiction. It may also enter into an agreement with any person to promote carpooling and the use of any other mode of shared transportation.

"Metropolitan transportation by bus" means all or part of a public transportation service, determined by the Agency after consultation with the council of the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, that allows a person to travel from one municipal territory to another municipal territory unless both are situated in the territory of the same public transit operating authority, and "bus" means a bus or a minibus within the meaning of the Highway Safety Code (chapter C-24.2 ). 47.

L'Agence planifie, réalise et exécute, aux conditions fixées par le gouvernement, tout prolongement du réseau de métro et toute infrastructure de transport en commun terrestre guidé. Un représentant de la Société de transport de Montréal est membre d'office des comités mis en place par l'Agence relativement à tout prolongement du réseau de métro et nécessitant son expertise comme exploitante. L'Agence peut exproprier sur son territoire tout bien nécessaire au prolongement du réseau de métro.

Elle doit céder à la Société de transport de Montréal, dès la fin des travaux ou à la date fixée par le gouvernement, tous les biens nécessaires au tunnel, aux voies, aux quais, aux garages des voitures de métro, aux ateliers et aux postes de redressement ou de ventilation. Elle doit aussi céder à la société de transport en commun concernée, selon le territoire où est situé le bien, tous les autres biens acquis sauf ceux déclarés métropolitains.

Les articles 154 et 155 de la Loi sur les sociétés de transport en commun (chapitre S-30.01 ) s'appliquent, compte tenu des adaptations nécessaires, aux travaux de prolongement du réseau de métro et aux expropriations de l'Agence. 47. The Agency shall plan, carry out and execute, on the conditions fixed by the Government, any subway system extension and any public guided land transport infrastructure.

A representative of the Société de transport de Montréal is by virtue of office a member of the committees created by the Agency in relation to any subway system extension and requiring its expert services as operator. The Agency may expropriate in its territory any property necessary for the extension of the subway system. The Agency shall transfer to the Société de transport de Montréal, on completion of the work or on the date fixed by the Government, all property necessary to the subway tunnel, lines, platforms, subway car garages, workshops and rectifier or ventilation stations.

The Agency shall also transfer to the public transit authority concerned, according to the area of jurisdiction in which the property is situated, all other property acquired except property that has been declared to be metropolitan property. Sections 154 and 155 of the Act respecting public transit authorities (chapter S-30.01 ) apply, with the necessary modifications, to subway extension work and to expropriations made by the Agency. 74. Aucun mode de tarification, établi par une municipalité en vertu des articles 244.1 à 244.10 de la

Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (chapitre F-2.1) pour ses biens, services et autres activités, n'est opposable à l'Agence . 74. No tariff of user fees established by a municipality under sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation (chapter F-2.1) in respect of its property, services and activities, may be levied against the Agency . [Soulignements ajoutés.] [Emphasis added.] [ 11 ] Below are a few of the provisions between sections 244.1 and 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation , which,

[ 11 ] Below are a few of the provisions between sections 244.1 and 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation , which, according to the Agency, govern the by-laws on which the City bases its claim: 244.1. Dans la mesure où est en vigueur un règlement du gouvernement prévu au paragraphe 8.2° de l'article 262, toute municipalité peut, par règlement, prévoir que tout ou

partie de ses biens, services ou activités sont financés au moyen d'un mode de tarification. Elle peut, de la même façon, prévoir qu'est ainsi financée tout ou

partie de la quote-part ou d'une autre contribution dont elle est débitrice pour un bien, un service ou une activité d'une autre municipalité, d'une communauté, d'une régie intermunicipale ou d'un autre organisme public intermunicipal. Elle peut également, de la même façon, prévoir qu'est ainsi financée tout ou

partie de la somme qu'elle doit verser en contrepartie de tout service que lui fournit la Sûreté du Québec. 244.1. Every municipality may, by by- law and to the extent that a regulation of the Government under paragraph 8.2 of

section 262 [6] is in force, provide that all or part of its property, services or activities shall be financed by means of a tariff. A municipality may, in the same manner, provide that all or part of the aliquot share or of other contribution owed by it in respect of property, services or activities of another municipality, a community, an intermunicipal body or another intermunicipal public body shall be financed as in the first paragraph.

A municipality may, in the same manner, provide that all or part of the amount it must pay in return for services provided by the Sûreté du Québec shall be financed as in the first paragraph. 244.2. Constitue un mode de tarification toute source locale et autonome de recettes, autre qu'une taxe basée sur la valeur foncière ou locative des immeubles ou des établissements d'entreprise, dont l'imposition n'est pas en soi incompatible avec l'application de l'article 244.3.

Sont notamment des modes de tarification : 1° une taxe foncière basée sur une autre caractéristique de l'immeuble que sa valeur, comme sa superficie, son étendue en front ou une autre de ses dimensions; 2° une compensation exigée du propriétaire ou de l'occupant d'un immeuble; 3° un prix exigé de façon ponctuelle ou sous forme d'abonnement pour l'utilisation d'un bien ou d'un service ou pour le bénéfice retiré d'une activité. Le seul mode de tarification que peut prévoir une municipalité régionale de comté n'agissant pas à

titre de municipalité locale en vertu de l'

article 8 de la

Loi sur l'organisation territoriale municipale (chapitre O-9 ) est un prix visé au paragraphe 3° du deuxième alinéa ou exigé selon des modalités analogues à celles d'un abonnement. 244.2. Any local and independent source of revenue other than a tax based on the property value or the rental value of immovables or business establishments and the imposition of which is not in itself incompatible with the application of

section 244.3 constitutes a mode of tariffing. A mode of tariffing includes, in particular, (1) a property tax based on a characteristic of the immovable other than its value, such as the area, the frontage or another dimension of the immovable; (2) a compensation exigible from the owner or occupant of an immovable; (3) a fixed amount exigible in a punctual manner or in the form of a subscription for the use of a property or a service or in respect of a benefit derived from an activity. The only mode of tariffing that may be provided for by a regional county municipality not acting as a local municipality under

section 8 of the Act respecting municipal territorial organization (chapter O-9 ) is a fixed amount referred to in subparagraph 3 of the second paragraph or an amount exigible in the same manner as a subscription.

244.3. Le mode de tarification doit être lié au bénéfice reçu par le débiteur. Le bénéfice est reçu non seulement lorsque le débiteur ou une personne à sa charge utilise réellement le bien ou le service ou profite de l'activité mais aussi lorsque le bien ou le service est à sa disposition ou que l'activité est susceptible de lui profiter éventuellement.

Cette règle s'applique également, compte tenu des adaptations nécessaires, dans le cas d'un bien, d'un service ou d'une activité qui profite ou est susceptible de profiter non pas à la personne en tant que telle mais à l'immeuble dont elle est propriétaire ou occupant. L'extension donnée par le deuxième alinéa au sens de l'expression « bénéfice reçu » ne s'applique pas si le mode de tarification est un prix exigé de façon ponctuelle pour l'utilisation du bien ou du service ou pour le bénéfice retiré d'une activité.

L'activité d'une municipalité qui consiste à étudier une demande et à y répondre est réputée procurer un bénéfice au demandeur, quelle que soit la réponse, y compris lorsque la demande a pour objet un acte réglementaire ou que la réponse consiste dans un tel acte. 244.3. The mode of tariffing must be related to the benefits derived by the debtor. Benefits are derived not only when the debtor or his dependent actually uses the property or service, or benefits from the activity but also when the property or service is at his disposal or the activity is an activity from which he may benefit in the future.

The rule, adapted as required, also applies in the case of a property, service or activity from which benefit may be derived not directly by the person but which may be derived in respect of the immovable of which he is the owner or occupant. The extended meaning given to the expression “benefits derived” in the second paragraph does not apply if the mode of tariffing is a fixed amount exigible in a punctual manner for the use of a property or a service or in respect of the benefit derived from an activity.

The activity of a municipality that consists in examining an application and responding to it is deemed to benefit the applicant, regardless of the response given, including cases where the subject of the application is a regulatory act or the response consists in such

an act. 244.10. Les articles 244.1 à 244.9 s'appliquent malgré toute disposition inconciliable d'une loi générale ou spéciale. 244.10. Sections 244.1 to 244.9 apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general law or special Act. * * [ 12 ] On March 9, 2012, Denis Laliberté J. of the Montreal Municipal Court ruled in favour of the Agency and dismissed the action against it. In his opinion, the Agency, as a mandatary corporation of the State, enjoys the same immunity as the State, at least concerning activities related to the objects assigned to it in its incorporating statute.

Section 42 of the

Interpretation Act therefore exempts it from the application of any particular statute, unless it is specially included therein. The Charter of Ville de Montréal , as it was in force during the relevant period, however, contains no provisions in this regard. Consequently, the fees imposed under

section 67 of

Schedule C thereto cannot be charged to the Agency (or the State in general). [ 13 ] The judge furthermore found that the Agency has never waived this immunity, as the appellant claims: the fact that it applied to the City for occupancy permits does not mean that the Agency wished to waive its immunity, but simply that it wished to inform the City of its needs and maintain good relations with it, for their mutual benefit. [ 14 ] In addition, the judge ruled that, beyond the immunity to which it is entitled on account of its status as a mandatary of the State, the Agency is also exempt from the City’s claim under

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport . According to the judge, while the price that the City intends to charge the Agency for occupation of the public domain is set out under

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal , it also falls under sections 244.1 and following of the Act respecting municipal taxation and is therefore contemplated by

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport . * * [ 15 ] Reiterating, for the most part, the arguments it submitted at trial, the City appeals

section 80 of the Act respecting municipal courts . [7] It disputes that the Agency enjoys immunity vis-à-vis the fees claimed, and if it had existed at all, it was in any case waived. It also denies that the amounts claimed are the result of tariffing governed by the Act respecting municipal taxation . * * [ 16 ] The appeal should be dismissed for the same reasons as given by the trial judge, namely, the Agency’s immunity as a mandatary of the State and the exemption provided in

section 74 of its incorporating statute. * * [ 17 ] As an introduction, it is appropriate to recall, citing Professors Issalys and Lemieux, the main features of the principle of the immunity of the State and its mandataries in statutory law (an immunity that does not shield it from the rule of law or the general law): [ translation]

15.8 Nature and scope of the common law rule … Under the common law, the Crown is not bound by the statute, even if the Queen herself has given assent to it (in Canada and Quebec, she does this through her representative), unless one of the following five conditions is present: (

a) The statute is of general application and does not infringe the rights and prerogatives of the Crown as recognized in common law (see 15.10 and 15.24). (

b) The Crown is expressly mentioned (see 15.11). (

c) The Crown is implicitly subject based on the general context of the law (see 15.12). (

d) The statute cannot produce its effect unless the Crown is subject to it; the subjection of the Crown must therefore be “necessarily implied” (see 15.13).

e) The Crown submits voluntarily to the statute by availing itself of it (see 15.14). … Apart from the aforementioned cases, therefore, the Crown is therefore not subject to the statute. The effect of this exemption scheme is that the government does not have to comply with the statute, even if it requires such compliance from all citizens. In short, the Crown is presumed not to be subject to the statute, although this presumption is rebuttable where one of the aforementioned conditions exists. … The legal and historical basis for the rule have been criticized by many.

Such criticism cannot alter the present situation, however, since the legislature has confirmed the rule of voluntary submission to the statute. … 15.9 Legislative recognition of the rule … The legislature has adopted rules of

interpretation that confirm already firmly established case law. In Quebec, the

Interpretation Act stipulates: “ No statute shall affect the rights of the State, unless they are specially included”. At the federal level, the same rule can be found, stated even more broadly: “ No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty’s rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment”. [8] [ 18 ] Certainly, the Agency, a legal person established in the public interest, is subject to the general law, although it is primarily governed by the Act by which it is constituted (see, inter alia ,

article 300 C.C.Q. and, concerning the law of obligations,

article 1376 C.C.Q. ). With regard to what could be called statutory law, however, which includes the Charter of Ville de Montréal , it retains the immunity enjoyed by the State and its mandataries as recognized in

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act . This immunity applies only to the extent that the Agency is engaged in carrying out the objects assigned to it in its incorporating statute, which is precisely the case here, since in its work to extend the subway, it was performing the obligations prescribed under sections 21 and 47 of the Act. [ 19 ] Basing itself on a restrictive and literal

interpretation of

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act , the City maintains that this provision does not apply in the present case because the Agency does not have a right , either as a result of its incorporating statute or otherwise, to occupy the municipal public domain for the purpose of carrying out its objects, and even less so to occupy it free of charge. The authorization process and the fees set out in the by-laws enacted under

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal therefore do not affect its rights to occupy the public domain – it has none – and may therefore be enforced against it. If it does not wish to comply and if it needs to occupy surface areas to gain access to the subsurface where the subway is being dug, all it has to do is expropriate these areas, permanently or temporarily, which it is allowed to do under paragraph 2 of

section 47 of its incorporating statute. [ 20 ] With respect, this submission is not convincing. [ 21 ] To the extent that the City – and this is the unavoidable premise on which its reasoning is based – claims that it has the power to authorize the Agency’s occupation of the public domain for the purposes of the work being carried out by the Agency under sections 27 and 47 of its incorporating statute and to impose a price for doing so, it necessarily affects the rights of this body. As this Court noted in Montréal (Ville de) v . Bell Canada, [9] it must be realized that, in the legislative scheme resulting from

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal , the fees are accessory to authorization. To agree with the City means that the work done by the Agency is indeed subject to its approval and inescapably affects the Agency’s rights within the meaning of

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act , by adding to sections 27 and 47 of its incorporating statute a requirement that is not there. It is true that, in Bell Canada , the Court interpreted

section 522 of the Charter of Ville de Montréal as it was then in force, but on this specific point, the structure and economy of the current

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter do not differ, and clearly show that fees are related to authorization. [ 22 ] It is therefore not up to the City to allow the Agency to occupy the public domain temporarily when it is necessary to do so – as was the case here – for the purpose of undertaking and completing the subway extension work.

Section 47 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport in no way subjects to any municipal authorization the work that the Agency may undertake (and which is, it must be remembered, in the public interest) [10] or its occupation of the public domain required for such purpose, either

underground or on the surface. But above all, whether expressly, implicitly or by necessary implication, [11] no provision of the Charter of Ville de Montréal , as it was at the relevant time, requires that the State, its mandataries in general, or the Agency in particular, is subject to it, in whole or in part. Consequently, by virtue of

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act , the Agency is exempt from the application of the by-laws resulting from

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter . [ 23 ] It follows that the City may not impose fees on the Agency for that Agency’s occupancy of the municipal public domain for the purposes of carrying out the work assigned to it under

section 47 of the Act respecting the Agence de transport métropolitain . Such fees also constitute a form of interference with the Agency’s work and definitely affect its rights (not to mention the fact that the fees claimed by the City create a debt for the Agency, which also affects the Agency’s rights). [ 24 ] The Agency’s situation in this regard is not unlike that of another mandatary of the Quebec government that was discussed in Québec (Ville de) v. Société immobilière du Québec . [12] In that case, the Société immobilière du Québec, a mandatary of the State under

section 3 of its incorporating statute (as in force at the time), [13] sought to recover from the City the amount of $161,826.18, which it had paid, under protest, as a contribution for a park, in conjunction with a construction project for a real estate complex intended to house a local community service centre (CLSC) and a residential and long-term care centre (CHSLD).

The project in question had entailed cadastral operations, which according to the City led to the payment of a contribution for the purposes of a park under a municipal by- law enacted under sections 117.1 and following of the Act respecting land use planning and development . [14] The Court found that the municipal by-law did not apply to the Société immobilière du Québec, a mandatary of the State, which benefited from immunity under

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act , as the Act respecting land use planning and development did not expressly provide that the government and its agencies be subject to the contested contribution. [15] [ 25 ] The same finding applies to the Agency, and for the same reason. [ 26 ] In addition, it is self-evident that to ensure a good relationship with the City and to inflict the least possible harm on the City and its citizens (which could incur certain consequences under the general law, including abuse of rights), the Agency has every interest in obtaining the cooperation of the municipality and complying with its requirements, insofar as these requirements do not prevent its work.

This is in fact what it attempted to do in this case by agreeing to comply with the City’s authorization process and by obtaining the permits required under the By-law concerning the occupancy of public property . The trial judge found that this could not be seen as a waiver of the Agency’s immunity, and he was right, both in law and in fact. It is clear from the record that the Agency had never waived asserting its status as a mandatary of the State (which, on the contrary, it proclaimed at all times) and the immunity related thereto.

It cannot be said that, by acting this way, it [ translation] “took advantage” of a statute (or a by-law authorized by a statute, as in the present case) and therefore did not fall within the exception whereby [ translation] “the Crown, though not expressly named in a statute, may always take advantage of any statute; in so doing, it may not ignore the provisions that are unfavourable to it but are rather closely related to the advantages sought.” [16] [ 27 ] Regarding this point, the following words of Thibault J.A., for this Court, in Québec (Ville de) v .

Société immobilière du Québec [17] can be applied to our case: [ translation] [41] Did the respondent waive its immunity by trying to meet the appellant’s urban planning requirements? I am of the view that it did not. Of course, the respondent behaved as a responsible corporate citizen by ensuring that the planned construction would comply with urban planning standards, but it did not seek or obtain any benefit from doing so.

Furthermore, it was assured by the appellant’s promises that it would not be affected by the obligations arising from the Regulation . [ 28 ] The same applies to the present case, in which the Agency acted as a good corporate citizen (and in another vein, it is worth noting that the record shows that the Agency rehabilitated the places it had occupied once the work was completed, acting again as a good corporate citizen, and not further waiving its immunity in so doing). [ 29 ] In

summary, because of its immunity under

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act , the Agency, a mandatary of the State, is exempt from the application of the By-law concerning the occupancy of public property . When such occupancy occurs at the end of the work carried out under its incorporating statute, the Agency shall also be immune, as a result, to the By-law concerning fees (in its various and successive versions). * * [ 30 ] Regardless of the issue of immunity, one must also consider the effect of the exemption under

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport , an exemption related to the tariffs of user fees levied by a municipality under sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation . In that regard, the City argues that the fees required by it from the Agency are set out [ translation] “ under a specific provision of the Charter of Ville de Montréal , namely

section 67 of

Schedule ‘C’, and not under sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation ”. [18] [ 31 ] It is not appropriate to emphasize the fact that the

preamble to the by-laws concerning fees for fiscal 2003 and 2004 explicitly refers, as we saw earlier, [19] to sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation . This reference did not appear in the two by-laws subsequently adopted for fiscal 2005 and 2006 by the borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville and in any event, it is not a conclusive argument by itself. [ 32 ] The following is determinative, however: The fees that the City may charge under

section 67, subsection 8, of

Schedule C to its Charter or any other provision thereof for the use of public property or services (including municipal space) must comply with the standards set out in sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation . In fact,

section 67, subsection 8, allows the City to charge fees, namely a tariff (or a “price”) for the use of property (that is, the municipal public space, and in this particular case, a park or a street), which is consistent with the purpose of

section 244.1 of the Act respecting municipal taxation , since these fees are also related to the benefit received by the debtor within the meaning of

section 244.3 of the Act respecting municipal taxation. [20] The City must then, in exercising the regulatory power conferred on it by

section 67, subsection 8, comply with sections 244.1 and following of the Act

respecting municipal taxation , which provisions are applicable in the event of inconsistency. [ 33 ]

Section 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation prescribes in fact that “[s]ections 244.1 to 244.9 apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general law or special Act ” ( “ [l]es articles 244.1 à 244.9 s'appliquent malgré toute disposition inconciliable d'une loi générale ou spéciale ”).

Section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal is definitely a provision of a special Act within the meaning of

section 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation. Consequently, insofar as the purpose of the municipal by-law is that under sections 244.1 to 244.3, which is the case,

section 67, subsection 8, cannot be construed in a manner that allows the City to do anything other than what is provided in sections 244.1 to 244.9 of the Act respecting municipal taxation. Therefore, these provisions, by operation of

section 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation , overlap

section 67, subsection 8, of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal , and dictate the content of the municipal by-law. [ 34 ] In other words, when the City passes a by-law under

section 67, subsection 8, of

Schedule C to its Charter , the price or the fee it thereby charges for the occupancy of public property (occupancy furthermore governed by the By-law concerning the occupancy of public property ) must comply with the prescriptions of sections 244.1 to 244.9 of the Act respecting municipal taxation . [21] [ 35 ] Given that the Agency, by reason of

section 74 of its incorporating statute, is exempt from the fees governed by sections 244.1 and following of the Act respecting municipal taxation , it would not be logical for it to remain subject at the same time to

section 67, subsection 8, of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal , a provision that allows only a settlement consistent with these provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation . Any other conclusion would amount to circumventing or neutralizing

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport . * * [ 36 ] At the end of its factum, the City raises an argument based on sections 128 and 157 of the Act respecting public transit authorities : [22] 128. Aucun mode de tarification, établi par une municipalité en vertu des articles 244.1 à 244.10 de la

Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (chapitre F-2.1 ) pour ses biens, services et autres activités, n'est opposable à une société. 128. No tariff of user fees established by a municipality under sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation (chapter F-2.1 ) in respect of its property, services and other activities, may be levied against a transit authority. 157.

Aucuns honoraires, droit, taxe ou frais de quelque nature que ce soit, relevant de l'autorité d'une ville, ne sont opposables à la Société de transport de Montréal pour l'émission d'un certificat d'approbation, d'un permis de construction ou d'un permis d'occupation à l'égard du réseau de métro. 157. No fee, duty, tax or cost of any nature, within the authority of a city may be levied against the Société de transport de Montréal for the issue of a certificate of approval, building permit or occupancy permit in respect of the subway network. [ 37 ] There is scarcely anything to say about

section 128 above, which is a carbon copy, intended for public transit authorities, of

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de transport . [ 38 ] As for

section 157 above, which concerns only the Société de transport de Montréal, it applies because this company is not a mandatary of the State. This provision was necessary if the Société was to be exempted from fees, taxes, or any expenses related to issuing a certificate of approval, building permit or occupancy permit in respect of the subway system. No argument – which here would arise from reasoning based on what is implied – can be drawn therefrom with regard to the situation of the Agency, which is a totally distinct corporation and a mandatary of the State. * * [ 39 ] A final word. Could the very existence of

section 74 of the Act respecting the Agence métropolitaine de Montréal give rise to the following question, bringing us back to the immunity enjoyed by the Agency as a mandatary of the State: Why is this provision necessary if the Agency, as a mandatary of the State, is supposed to be exempt, in principle, from municipal taxes and tariffs?

If it was thought appropriate to specify this exemption, is it not because otherwise, it would have been implicitly subject to the provision? [ 40 ] Regardless of the difficulties stemming from the problem of the State being implicitly subject to statutory law, the answer to this question can be found in the Act respecting municipal taxation . This Act, which applies to the State and its mandataries (

section 488 of the Act respecting municipal taxation ), provides, however, for a special scheme for entry on the property assessment roll of immovables belonging to public bodies that

section 1 defines as “ the State, the Crown in right of Canada or one of their mandataries, a municipality, a community, a fabrique , an intermunicipal management board or a school board” (“ l'État, la Couronne du chef du Canada ou l'un de leurs mandataires, une municipalité, une Communauté, une fabrique, une régie intermunicipale ou une commission scolaire ”).

Section 204 of the Act respecting municipal taxation states moreover that an entire series of public bodies, specifically including the Agency (subsection 204(2.2)), are exempt from municipal or school property taxes.

Section 236, paragraph (1)(

a) of the Act respecting municipal taxation exempts the Agency, by name as well, from any business tax. [ 41 ] We may ask ourselves, however, whether the tariffs of user fees provided for in sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation , which do not include any exception in favour of the State or its mandataries, are likely to be applied to public bodies. At least as far as the Agency is concerned, the answer to this question is clearly “No”, based on

section 74 of its incorporating statute, which expressly exempts it therefrom. [23] In the case of this State corporation,

section 74 completes the exception scheme established by the Act respecting municipal taxation (just as

section 75 does concerning duties on transfers of immovables). [24] This provision, however, does not challenge the Agency’s immunity with regard to any other legislation that does not specially mention it within the meaning of

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act .

* * [ 42 ] In

summary, whether through the operation of immunity by reason of its status as a mandatary of the State or because of

section 74 of its incorporating statute, the Agency is exempted from the By-law concerning the occupancy of public property and the By- law concerning fees , as neither

section 67 of

Schedule C to the Charter of Ville de Montréal nor sections 244.1 to 244.10 of the Act respecting municipal taxation may be applied to the Agency . [ 43 ] I would therefore dismiss the appeal. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.