Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Rezoning Decision

Date: 20260421 Docket: T-1811-22 Citation: 2026 FC 532 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, April 21 , 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and COUNCIL OF THE [NAME] Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The applicant seeks judicial review of Resolution No 7337, dated August 8, 2022, of the Council of the [NAME] [respectively, Resolution 7337 and the Council] and By-law 2022-01 to amend By-law 2007-02 concerning zoning on the territory of Wendake [ By-law 2022-01], adopted by the Council on August 8, 2022, under Resolution 7337. [ 2 ] The specific orders sought by the applicant are: (a) The issuance of an order declaring Resolution 7337 a nullity; (b) The issuance of an order declaring By-law 2022-01 a nullity; (c) The issuance of an injunction order that the Council immediately cease construction of a single building of six social housing units located on Lots 107 and 108 on Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME] in Wendake; (d) The issuance of an order to prevent the Council from allocating, renting, selling or transferring, in any form whatsoever, units in the illegally constructed building of six units on both Lots 107 and 108 of Chef-Herménégilde-[NAME] in Wendake; (e) The issuance of an injunction order that the Council restore Lots 107 and 108 of Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME] in Wendake to their original state, within 30 days of the judgment; (f) The issuance of an order for the enforcement of the judgment notwithstanding appeal; (g) The issuance of an order for fees and disbursements to be awarded to the applicant on a solicitor-client basis; (h) With costs against the respondent. [ 3 ] The Council asks that the applicant’s action be dismissed. [ 4 ] [ADDRESS] has considered the evidence in the record, the oral and written submissions of the parties, and the applicable jurisprudence. [ADDRESS] concludes that the applicant’s claim must be dismissed, for the reasons that follow.

I. Background and Facts A. The Parties [ 5 ] The Council is a council of the band within the meaning of section 2 of the Indian Act (RSC 1985, c I-5) [the [NAME]]. The Council is the governing body of the [NAME]. [ 6 ] The Council has the powers of a band council under the [NAME]. The Council has the power to make by-laws identified in subsection 81(1) of the [NAME], including but not limited to zoning by‑laws applicable to the territory of [NAME] of the Village Des Hurons Wendake No. 7 and No. 7a [[NAME]]. [ 7 ] The applicant is a member of the [NAME] and lives on [NAME]. B. Construction Project to Create Housing for Members with [NAME] [ 8 ] On November 29, 2022, there were 4,630 members of the [NAME], including 1,482 living on [NAME] and 3,148 living off [NAME] [the Members]. The Council offers a housing program through which lots on [NAME] can be awarded to Members, at a maximum rate of five lots per year. It collects the names of people who want to live on [NAME] and places them on a waiting list. On November 30, 2021, there were 949 Members on the waiting list. [ 9 ] The Council was eager to increase the supply of affordable housing for elderly Members and [NAME], since some of the buildings they lived in on [NAME] had become dilapidated. [ 10 ] The Council’s original plan to increase [NAME]’s housing supply was to build three rowhouses with two dwelling units per building. In terms of architecture, the planned buildings resembled single-family homes, not multi-unit buildings. The Council selected a parcel of land on [NAME] on Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME] as the site for the construction of the residential dwellings in question. That parcel is Lots 107 and 108 on Chef‑Herménégilde‑[NAME] in Wendake. Lot 107 is adjacent to Lot 108, and Lot 108 is adjacent to the parcel occupied by the applicant’s residence. The applicant has no personal right in Lots 107 or 108 of [NAME]. [ 11 ] The Council signed a funding agreement with the [NAME] [[NAME]] on March 3, 2021, to finance the construction of new buildings. The contract, entitled the “Rapid Housing Initiative Agreement” , stipulated that [NAME] agreed to contribute $1,878,510 towards the construction of affordable multi-residential buildings on [NAME] as described in the contract. [ 12 ] The [NAME]-funded construction project originally comprised two projects. The first, which is the subject of this dispute, involved the construction of six dwelling units on Lots 107 and 108 on Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME] in Wendake [the Place of Construction]. The second involved the construction of a two-unit building on Pierre-Albert-[NAME]. [ 13 ] On May 24, 2021, when no preliminary construction plan was available, a petition signed by 12 Members living on [NAME], including the applicant, was sent to the Council to oppose construction of an apartment building on Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME]. The petition cites the reasons for objecting to the construction of the building, including loss of peace and quiet, increased traffic, overcrowding of the street, increased social problems, loss of enjoyment, and psychological harm, among others. [ 14 ] In early July 2021, under Council Resolution 7171, which was adopted on March 29, 2021, the Council issued a call for tenders to retain the professional and contractual services needed for the building construction project. Architects were selected to draw up performance specifications to build the social housing units contemplated in the contract. Since the Council could not carry out the project for two dwelling units on Albert-[NAME], it considered the construction of eight units—two buildings of four units each—on Lots 107 and 108. [ 15 ] On September 1, 2021, the Council received a preliminary construction plan to build two rowhouses with a common wall, with four units per building, on Lots 107 and 108. [ 16 ] With the preliminary construction plan in hand, the Chief and the Council’s Director of Technical Services and Infrastructure visited the residence of each of the signatories of the petition of May 24, 2021, to explain the proposed construction project and present the plan. The Chief and the Director of Technical Services and Infrastructure met with the applicant, among other petition signatories. Five of the signatories subsequently withdrew their opposition to the planned project. The applicant maintained his opposition despite the meeting and the explanations offered. [ 17 ] The Council amended the project following these consultations. It determined that a two‑unit building could be constructed elsewhere on [NAME]. The buildings planned for Lots 107 and 108 were redesigned, and a new preliminary plan for the construction of three rowhouses with two units per building was prepared. [ 18 ] The Council hired a building contractor and, on December 17, 2021, the Council’s Director of Technical Services and Infrastructure signed a final contract for the design and construction of three rowhouses on Lots 107 and 108. [ 19 ] The construction project went ahead in March 2022. The plan of survey showing the location of Lots 107 and 108 on [NAME] was received in early March 2022, and construction began in late April 2022. C. The Applicant’s Challenge to the Project [ 20 ] On October 11, 2021, while the contractor selection process was underway, the applicant submitted a complaint to the Council regarding alleged non-compliance with section 4.4.10 of By‑law 2007-02 concerning zoning on the territory of Wendake [the 2007 By-law]. The applicant’s complaint was based on his understanding that the project for the construction of a single building with six units on Lots 107 and 108 infringed the 2007 By-law, which permits the construction of residences of no more than three stacked dwelling units. [ 21 ] On October 18, 2021, the Council responded to the applicant’s complaint, stating that the proposed project consisted of three buildings of two stacked dwellings and that it was consequently in compliance with the 2007 By-law. [ 22 ] On November 22, 2021, the applicant asked the [NAME] to intervene with respect to his concerns about the construction of six dwelling units. The Council responded to the applicant’s concerns on December 15, 2021, and reiterated that the proposed construction was in compliance with the 2007 By-law. [ 23 ] On February 9, 2022, the applicant sent a demand letter to the Council. In the letter, the applicant reiterated that the proposed construction on Lots 107 and 108 was not compliant with the 2007 By-law. The applicant stated, among other things, that Lots 107 and 108 are in the RAT.1 zone and that this zone permits detached single-family, two-family or three-family buildings of a maximum of two storeys, but does not permit stacked units or buildings of six dwellings. [ 24 ] The applicant further stated that the Council must apply the consultation measures set out in section 3.4.3 of the 2007 By-law to grant a minor exception, and that the consultation procedure set out in section 3.3.2 of the 2007 By-law had to be applied if the Council wished to amend the zoning by-law to allow construction of the proposed building on Lots 107 and 108. [ 25 ] The Council took note of the demand letter and determined that its validation of the project’s compliance with the 2007 By-law had been based on an amended version of the zoning by-law from 2014 that had never been adopted. The Council then determined that the 2007 By‑law would have to be amended for the proposed construction to comply with zoning on [NAME]. [ 26 ] The Council suspended construction in May 2022 so that it could regularize the zoning. D. The Zoning Regularization Process [ 27 ] On May 26, 2022, the Council sent a public notice of its intention to make a by-law to amend the zoning by-law, along with a copy of the draft of By-law 2022-01 to amend By-law 2007-02 concerning zoning on the territory of Wendake [the Public Notice]. On its face, the Public Notice indicates that it was sent in accordance with sections 3.3.2.4 to 3.3.2.6 of the 2007 By-law. [ 28 ] The Public Notice also contains a note explaining the draft of By-law 2022-01, as follows: [ translation ] EXPLANATORY NOTE As you will see below, the draft By-law 2022-01 to amend By-law 2007-02 concerning zoning on the territory of Wendake aims to: (1) define the types of buildings that may be authorized on the territory; (2) allow, the amendment aims to allow, in the the R.A.T 1, 2 and 3 zones, namely the lots adjacent to the bicycle path, with a civic address on Chef Herménégilde-[NAME] or Chef François-[ADDRESS], and located west of [NAME]) to the eastern boundary of the territory of Wendake, the construction of rowhouses for a maximum of two dwellings per lot in these zones. (Errors in original.) [ 29 ] The Council opened and kept a Register of Objections to the Amendment to the 2007 By‑law [the Objections Register] at its offices to allow those opposed to the draft amendment to object. The Objections Register was kept open to receive objections to the draft zoning amendment for 14 days following the date the Public Notice was sent. The 14 days expired on June 9, 2022. When the Council closed the Objections Register at 4 p.m. on June 9, 2022, it contained only 16 signatures indicating opposition. [ 30 ] Given that the Objections Register contained fewer than 50 signatures, the Council did not hold public consultations before voting on the adoption of By-law 2022-01. [ 31 ] On August 8, 2022, a majority of the Council passed Resolution 7337 and adopted By‑law 2022-01, in accordance with its powers under subsection 2(3) and paragraphs 81(1)(f), (g), (h), and (q) of the [NAME]. Zoning in [NAME] was thus amended so that construction of three buildings, together comprising six dwellings, on Lots 1035-211, 1035-212 and 1035-213, formerly Lots 107 and 108, could continue. [ 32 ] Construction resumed on August 15, 2022, and work was completed on July 1, 2023. Since then, the dwellings have been rented by [NAME] and Members with reduced mobility.

II. The Dispute A. The Notice of Application and the Applicant’s Allegations [ 33 ] The applicant commenced this judicial review proceeding under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act by filing his notice of application on September 6, 2022 [Notice of Application]. [ 34 ] The applicant alleges that the Council’s adoption of Resolution 7337 was illegal and that By‑law 2022-01 is invalid, due to: (a) bad faith on the part of the Council from the beginning of construction, since construction of the building on Lots 107 and 108 on [NAME] started before the 2007 By‑law was amended to allow its construction where it is located; and (b) the Council’s failure to comply with the procedure to amend the 2007 By-law. [ 35 ] The applicant sets out the facts supporting his allegations in his Notice of Application, specifically alleging that: (a) he received the Public Notice from the Council by mail five days after the beginning of the 14-day objection period set out in the 2007 By-law; (b) the Public Notice was not published on the Council’s website; (c) he was not able to sign the Objections Register because it was possible to do so only during business hours; (d) Members living outside the territory of Wendake were not authorized to sign the Objections Register; (e) the Council never sought to change the zoning of Lots 107 and 108 of Chef‑Herménégilde-[NAME] before obtaining a certificate of compliance for the construction of a six-unit building for social housing on these two lots; (f) the Council failed to meet its obligations of good faith and diligence. [ 36 ] The applicant also argues that the [NAME] [the [NAME]] applies in the circumstances and provides that the Council’s offices must remain open until 7:00 p.m. and that Members living off the [NAME] are authorized to vote and therefore could object to the draft amendment of the 2007 By-law. [ 37 ] Finally, the applicant alleges that the failure to consult the Members to amend the 2007 By-law renders its adoption invalid.

III. The Issues [ 38 ] The applicant raises two issues. [ 39 ] The first is whether Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022-01 are valid and legal. The second is whether the Council acted in bad faith by adopting Resolution 7337 and By‑law 2022‑01. [ 40 ] The applicant argues that the standard of review is that of reasonableness as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ]. [ 41 ] The Council agrees that the standard of review is reasonableness but argues more specifically that judicial review is subject to the principles of administrative review discussed in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FCA 171 at paras 23–27 [ [NAME] ]; Ville de Québec c [NAME] , 2020 QCCA 1130 at para 42 (leave to appeal refused) and [NAME] v [NAME] (District) , 2012 SCC 2 at paras 12–13 [ [NAME] ]. [ 42 ] [ADDRESS] agrees with the Council that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness, applied in the context of the review of subordinate legislation discussed in [NAME] and [NAME] , and updated in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2024 SCC 36 [ [NAME] ].

IV. The Standard of Review [ 43 ] As stated in [NAME] and explained by Chief Justice De Montigny in paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Canadian Coalition for [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 82: [27] Shortly before the hearing of this case before us, the Supreme Court released its decision in [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2024 SCC 36 [ [NAME] ] and put a definitive end to that debate. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Côté firmly held that [NAME] ’s reasonableness review is the presumptive standard for reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation. Unless the legislature indicates otherwise or the rule of law requires the application of a different standard, reasonableness should apply to regulations irrespective of the delegate who enacted it, the delegate’s proximity to the legislative branch or the process by which the regulations were enacted . [28] This is not to say that all the principles enunciated in Katz should be discarded. Justice Côté explicitly stressed that Katz continues to provide “valuable guidance” , and that [NAME] only marks a “narrow departure” from it. More particularly, a reasonableness review of the vires of subordinate legislation should still be informed by the following principles: 1) subordinate legislation must be consistent both with specific provisions of the enabling statute and with its overriding purpose or object; 2) subordinate legislation benefits from a presumption of validity; 3) the challenged subordinate legislation and the enabling statute should be interpreted using a broad and purposive approach to statutory interpretation; and 4) a vires review does not involve assessing the policy merits of the subordinate legislation to determine whether it is necessary, wise, or effective in practice . [29] In other words, the “irrelevant”, “extraneous” or “completely unrelated” language found in the jurisprudence preceding [NAME] may have been “hyper-deferential” (as characterized by [NAME] in “Regulations and Reasonableness Review” in Administrative Law Matters (29 January 2021), www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2021/01/29/regulations-and-reasonableness-review/) or “an artefact from a time long since passed” (in the words of my colleague Justice Stratas in [NAME] at para. 22 ). This is not to say, however, that the party challenging the vires of a regulation will be relieved from the burden of showing that it does not reasonably fall within the scope of the delegate’s authority. In making that assessment, the Court must determine whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness (justification, transparency and intelligibility), and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision ( [NAME] at para. 99 ). [ 44 ] As stated in [NAME] at paragraph 100 and in [NAME] at paragraphs 38 and 39, the burden is on the applicant to show that the impugned by-law is invalid and to overcome the presumption of validity of the by-law. In this case, the burden is on the applicant to show that Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022-01 are invalid or unreasonable in light of the principles emerging from the case law, which apply here as follows: (1) Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022-01 must be consistent with both the relevant provisions of the [NAME] and the overriding purpose of the [NAME]; (2) Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022-01 benefit from a presumption of validity; (3) Resolution 7337, By-law 2022-01, and the [NAME] must continue to be interpreted using a broad and purposive approach to statutory interpretation; and (4) A vires review of Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022-01 does not call for an assessment of policy merits to determine whether they are necessary, wise or effective in practice.

V. The Legal Framework [ 45 ] The legal framework governing the issues requires a review of the applicable provisions of the [NAME]. Their application is not challenged, and there is no dispute that the Council has the delegated authority to pass a zoning by-law or a by-law to amend an existing zoning by-law. [ 46 ] As a band council within the meaning of the [NAME], the Council has the powers set out in subsection 81(1) of the [NAME]. For our purposes, this provision reads as follows: Powers of the Council Pouvoirs du conseil By-laws Règlements administratifs 81 (1) The council of a band may make by-laws not inconsistent with this Act or with any regulation made by the Governor in Council or the Minister, for any or all of the following purposes, namely, 81 (1) Le conseil d’une bande peut prendre des règlements administratifs, non incompatibles avec la présente loi ou avec un règlement pris par le gouverneur en conseil ou par le ministre, pour l’une ou l’ensemble des fins suivantes : … … (f) the construction and maintenance of watercourses, roads, bridges, ditches, fences and other local works; f) l’établissement et l’entretien de cours d’eau, routes, ponts, fossés, clôtures et autres ouvrages locaux; (g) the dividing of [NAME] or a portion thereof into zones and the prohibition of the construction or maintenance of any class of buildings or the carrying on of any class of business, trade or calling in any zone; g) la division de la réserve ou d’une de ses parties en zones, et l’interdiction de construire ou d’entretenir une catégorie de bâtiments ou d’exercer une catégorie d’entreprises, de métiers ou de professions dans une telle zone; (h) the regulation of the construction, repair and use of buildings, whether owned by the band or by individual members of the band; h) la réglementation de la construction, de la réparation et de l’usage des bâtiments, qu’ils appartiennent à la bande ou à des membres de la bande pris individuellement; … … (q) with respect to any matter arising out of or ancillary to the exercise of powers under this section; q) toute question qui découle de l’exercice des pouvoirs prévus par le présent article, ou qui y est accessoire; [ 47 ] A by-law is passed by the Council when it is adopted by a majority of the members of the Council present at a meeting of the Council duly convened (subsection 2(3) [NAME]). Once adopted, a by-law made under the scheme of the [NAME] must be published, in accordance with section 86 of the [NAME]. [ 48 ] The Council has had a zoning by-law in force since at least 1985. Since then, the zoning by-law has been amended several times by resolution of the Council. The last version of the applicable zoning by-law adopted by resolution of the Council prior to the dispute is the version that was in effect following the 2007 amendments made by the 2007 By-law. [ 49 ] The 2007 By-law sets out its amendment procedure as follows: [ translation ] 3.3 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT PROCEDURE 3.3.1 Definitions (A) AMENDMENT Council by-law to amend another Council by-law according to the procedure set out in this by-law and in accordance with the Indian Act. (B) PUBLIC CONSULTATION Public meeting held by the Council in accordance with the Code of Representation of the Huron-Wendat First [NAME]. 3.3.2 Applicable By-law 3.3.2.1 Amendment of Zoning By-law Unless it has complied in all respects with the procedure set out in this section, the Council may not change any provision of the by‑law without first submitting it to the public consultation procedure set out in the following provisions. 3.3.2.2 Request for Amendment of Zoning By-law Electors may submit a request to amend this by-law to the Council of the [NAME]. The Council will rule on this request and, if it is accepted, it will be subject to the procedure in sections 3.3.2.3 and following. 3.3.2.3 Submission of the Proposal to the Director Any proposal for an amendment to this by-law must be submitted to the director, together with the information needed for its consideration. After considering the proposal, the director may make any useful recommendation to the applicant regarding the draft. The director then sends the proposal to the Council. 3.3.2.4 Public Notice At least 30 days prior to the date set for a vote on an amendment to a zoning by‑law, the Council must send a public notice to all civic addresses on [NAME] informing the population of the proposed changes to the zoning by-law. 3.3.2.5 Signing the Register Any person entitled to vote on [NAME] then has 14 days from the date of publication of the notice to oppose the amendment proposed by the Council by signing a register kept for this purpose at the office of the Council of the [NAME]. 3.3.2.6 Public Consultation If more than 50 persons sign the register, the Council must hold a public consultation before adopting the proposed amendment. A public notice must be published at least 14 days prior to the date of the public consultation. During the public consultation meeting, the Council will explain the nature of the proposed by-law amendment and hear those who wish to comment on the matter. 3.3.2.7 Adoption of the By-law Following the public consultation, the Council may adopt the by‑law with or without amendment, in accordance with the procedure set out in the Indian Act. 3.3.2.8 By-law Must be Sent to DIAND Within four days of the adoption of the by-law, a copy of the by‑law must be sent to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). 3.3.2.9 Coming into Force The by-law comes into force 40 days after a copy is sent to DIAND, unless DIAND cancels it or declares it in force before the expiry of that period. 3.3.2.10 Notification of Changes by Public Notice Upon the coming into force of the by-law, the Council will send a public notice to all civic addresses on [NAME] informing the population of the changes made to the zoning by-law. 3.3.2.11 Procedure The procedure for a proposed amendment to the zoning by-law is illustrated in figure 3.3.3. [Omission by the Court]

VI. Arguments A. The Applicant’s Inadmissible Arguments [ 50 ] In paragraphs 60 to 90 and 120 to 124 of his memorandum of fact and law, the applicant argues that the Council’s conduct was tainted by bad faith or illegal, among other things, because it issued a building permit for the construction of the building, because it commenced construction even though the building permit was invalid at the time it was issued since the construction plan for the building was not in compliance with the 2007 By-law, and because the Council amended the 2007 By-law in 2022 after the permits and authorizations for the construction of the building had been issued and construction was already underway. [ 51 ] These grounds of challenge were not pleaded in the applicant’s Notice of Application. [ 52 ] In paragraphs 91 to 119 of his memorandum of fact and law, the applicant argues that the Council and its employees acted in bad faith and displayed reckless disregard and negligence in their interpretation of the 2007 By-law. He submits that this led to the construction of the building starting illegally due to a lack of compliance with the 2007 By-law, and that this negligence continued in their responses to the applicant’s letters and demand letter. The applicant argues that this conduct demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Council and that the evidence in the record, including that in [NAME]’s affidavit, contains admissions in this regard. [ 53 ] These grounds of challenge were not pleaded in the applicant’s Notice of Application. [ 54 ] In paragraphs 138 and 141 to 146 of his memorandum of fact and law, the applicant argues that the [NAME] applies to the interpretation of the procedures for amending the 2007 By‑law in order to determine whether the Council acted in bad faith in the amending process it followed in By-law 2022-01. He further argues that the failure to comply with the provisions of the [NAME] prohibited or limited access to the Objections Register for Members who did not live on [NAME]. He submits that this way of proceeding demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Council and renders the adoption of By-law 2022-01 unreasonable and illegal. [ 55 ] These grounds of challenge were not pleaded in the applicant’s Notice of Application. [ 56 ] [ADDRESS] has consistently found that persons who are seeking judicial review must set out in their notices of application the grounds on which they rely and that they cannot present new grounds in their memoranda of fact and law, even if the respondent has not been prejudiced ( Canada (Attorney General) v [COMPANY] , 2021 FCA 244 at para 42; [NAME] v [NAME] , 2013 FC 226 at paras 6 and 7; Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 para 301(e); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [2001] 3 FCJ No 24 (FC Trial Division) at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General of Canada) , 2005 FC 954; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FC 601; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FC 1076 at para 53; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1626 at paras 33–39; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 1884 at para 61). [ 57 ] The grounds of challenge identified above, as well as the arguments based on them in paragraphs 60 to 124, 138, and 141 to 146 of the applicant’s memorandum of fact and law, are therefore inadmissible and cannot be considered in the analysis of the issues. B. Compliance with the Procedure to Amend the 2007 By-law [ 58 ] The applicant submits that the Council acted in bad faith in adopting By-law 2022-01 because it failed to follow the amendment procedure set out in the 2007 By-law to amend zoning regulations through By-law 2022-01. [ 59 ] The applicant submits that the Council acted in bad faith because: (a) the procedure to amend the 2007 By-law is set out in sections 3.3.2.4 to 3.3.2.6 of the 2007 By-law, and it was not followed; (b) the applicant did not receive his copy of the Public Notice of May 26, 2022, in the mail until May 31, 2022; (c) the Objections Register was accessible only Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and noon, and between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. As a result, Members did not have a period of 14 days to sign the Objections Register, in violation of section 3.3.2.5 of the 2007 By‑law; and (d) the Council did not consult the Members before adopting By-law 2022-01 and therefore breached section 3.3.2.6 of the 2007 By-law. [ 60 ] The Council argues that it followed the amendment procedure set out in section 3.3 of the 2007 By-law and that the applicant has not established any irregularity in the amendment procedure that could involve a condition essential to the validity of By-law 2022-01. The Council relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Immeubles Port Louis ltée v [NAME] (Village) , 1991 CanLII 82 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 326 at 351–352, to argue that only fundamental illegalities that impair the substance of the proceeding or that affect a fundamental right are admissible to invalidate By-law 2022-01. [ 61 ] In particular, the Council submits that it complied with the 2007 By-law because: (a) it sent the Public Notice to all civic addresses on [NAME] on May 26, 2022, as required by section 3.3.2.4; (b) the 14-day period under section 3.3.2.5 to allow Members on [NAME] to object to the proposed amendment was complied with and does not require the application of the [NAME]; and (c) the public consultation set out in section 3.3.2.6 was not necessary since fewer than 50 people signed the Objections Register.

VII. Analysis A. Resolution 7337 [ 62 ] The copy of Resolution 7337 in the record before the Court shows that the Resolution was adopted by the Council in accordance with subsection 2(3) of the [NAME]. [ 63 ] The applicant has not submitted any arguments to challenge the validity of Resolution 7337.

Accordingly, the applicant has not discharged his burden of proof and persuasion in this regard. No grounds are established for the Court to declare Resolution 7337 null and void. The applicant’s application regarding Resolution 7337 will therefore be denied. B. By-law 2022-01 [ 64 ] A full reading of section 3.3 of the 2007 By-law in its proper context, in light of the [NAME] and in consideration of the usual principles of statutory interpretation—namely, by reading the words of the Act or by-law in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ) , 2025 SCC 21 at paras 63, 87; [NAME] at para 120)—reveals that the process to amend the 2007 By-law involved the steps set out in Figure 3.3.3 and described in sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. [ 65 ] Neither the 2007 By-law nor the [NAME] in the record provides that the 2007 By‑law must or should be interpreted or supplemented by borrowing from the [NAME]. There is an exception in subsection 3.3.1(B) of the 2007 By-law regarding how a [ translation ] “public consultation” is to be held if one is required (the Court notes that the “public consultation” process does not appear in the [NAME] filed in the Court record by the applicant). Apart from this explicit case, the interpretive provisions in section 1.8 of the 2007 By‑law do not refer to the [NAME] for interpretation, and the [NAME] does not state that it applies to matters relating to the zoning by-law amendment process. The 2007 By‑law and the [NAME] provide for by-laws with separate and distinct purposes, and they do not intermingle save to the extent explicitly set out in subsection 3.3.1(B) of the 2007 By-law. [ 66 ] I therefore conclude that the provisions of the [NAME] cannot be, and are not, used to interpret or supplement the provisions of the 2007 By-law except to the extent described above. The applicant’s arguments based on the application of the provisions of the [NAME] to interpret and supplement the 2007 By-law are therefore unfounded. [ 67 ] Section 3.3.2.1 of the 2007 By-law states that a provision of the zoning by-law applicable on [NAME] may be amended by the Council without first being subject to the public consultation process if the Council complies in all respects with the amendment procedure set out in section 3.3 of the 2007 By-law. What this provision shows is that the lack of a public consultation prior to the amendment of a section of the zoning by-law is not in itself determinative of the invalidity of the amending by-law that is adopted. [ 68 ] The steps in the 2007 By-law process that are relevant in this case are those that concern: the Public Notice to inform persons associated with civic addresses on [NAME] of the proposed by-law changes under section 3.3.2.4; the signing of the Objections Register by persons opposing the project under section 3.3.2.5; the need for public consultation under section 3.3.2.6; the Council’s decision on the adoption, amendment or rejection of the proposed amending by‑law; and the adoption of the amending by-law under section 3.3.2.7. (1) The Public Notice [ 69 ] Section 3.3.2.4 of the 2007 By-law sets out the Council’s duty to send a public notice, identifies the recipients of the public notice, defines its content, and identifies the time within which the notice must be sent. The words used in the provision indicate that: (a) the Council must send a public notice; (b) the public notice must inform the population of the proposed changes to the zoning by‑law; (c) the public notice must be sent to all civic addresses on [NAME]; and (d) the public notice must be sent at least 30 days prior to the date set for the vote on the zoning by-law amendment. [ 70 ] The Council’s actions documented in the evidence show that the Council interpreted this provision as requiring that a public notice be mailed to all civic addresses on [NAME] at least 30 days prior to the Council’s vote on the amending by-law, and that the notice sent must inform the population of the proposed changes to the zoning by-law. [ 71 ] The Public Notice in the record complies with the requirements of section 3.3.2.4. [ 72 ] Section 3.3.2.4 does not prescribe a date by which a Member with a civic address on [NAME] must have received a copy of the Public Notice. The fact that the applicant received the Public Notice a few days after it was sent on May 26, 2022, does not invalidate the Council’s procedure. What matters is whether the Public Notice was sent to civic addresses on [NAME] at least 30 days prior to the date of a vote on the proposed by-law amendment, and this was done. [ 73 ] Section 3.3.2.4 does not require the Council to publish or post a copy of the Public Notice on the Council’s website. Failure to post the Public Notice on the Council’s website does not invalidate the process followed by the Council with respect to sending the Public Notice. [ 74 ] The Public Notice must be sent to [ translation ] “civic addresses on [NAME]” , not to all voting Members of the [NAME]. The applicant’s argument that the Public Notice must be sent to all voting Members of the [NAME] whether or not they have civic addresses on [NAME] is contrary to the explicit and limiting language in section 3.3.2.4 of the 2007 By-law and cannot be accepted. [ 75 ] The Council’s interpretation of section 3.3.2.4 of the 2007 By-law is not unreasonable, and the way it implemented the obligations it sets out is also not unreasonable. The applicant’s arguments that the procedure followed by the Council fails to comply with the 2007 By‑law with respect to the Public Notice must be rejected. (2) The Objections Register [ 76 ] Section 3.3.2.5 provides for the possibility for certain persons to express their opposition to the proposed amending by-law explained in the Public Notice. It also indicates how these persons may express their opposition and when they may communicate it. [ 77 ] Section 3.3.2.5 provides that an objection to the proposed by-law must be made by signing a register. The register to be signed must be kept at the Council’s office for that specific purpose. Section 3.3.2.5 does not specify the times during which the register must be accessible for signing by someone who objects to the proposed amending by-law. [ 78 ] Nevertheless, section 3.3.2.5 specifies that persons wishing to express their opposition to the proposed by-law must do so by signing the register within 14 days of the date of publication of the notice. [ 79 ] Finally, the provision states that [ translation ] “any person entitled to vote on [NAME]” may oppose it by signing the register. [ 80 ] The Council’s actions documented in the evidence show that the Council interpreted this provision as requiring it to maintain the Objections Register at the Council’s offices and that the Register be accessible for signing during the normal hours of operation of the Council’s offices, namely, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays, not weekends. The evidence shows that the Council considered the date the Public Notice was sent in accordance with section 3.3.2.4 to be the date of publication of the notice referred to in section 3.3.2.5, and that the 14 days contemplated in the provision were counted as calendar days from the date the Public Notice was sent. Furthermore, the evidence in the record indicates that this approach reflects the Council’s usual practice in such matters. [ 81 ] The applicant asserts that the Council did not comply with the requirements of this provision because the Objections Register was accessible only Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and that the Members consequently did not have 14 days to sign the Objections Register. The applicant’s argument must be rejected. [ 82 ] Given the silence in section 3.3.2.5 with respect to the times and days during which the Objections Register must be accessible for an opponent to sign, the Council’s choice to follow its usual practice of allowing the Register to remain publicly accessible at the location where it must be kept during that location’s business hours was not unreasonable. This interpretation takes into account all the words of the 2007 By-law on the amendment procedure and is related to the objectives sought by the procedure set out. The applicant’s arguments regarding the application of the [NAME] to determine the hours of accessibility to the Objections Register are rejected, because the [NAME] does not apply here. [ 83 ] Section 3.3.2.5 does not require the Council to keep the Objections Register accessible at its offices at all hours for 14 consecutive days. Rather, section 3.3.2.5 provides that an opponent has 14 days from the date of publication of the notice to express an objection in the manner set out in the provision. The evidence shows that the Council kept the Objections Register accessible for signing during its business hours for a period of 14 days beginning on May 26, 2022, and that 16 individuals signed the Objections Register during the hours it was accessible. Opponents who wished to object had to sign the Objections Register where and while it was accessible at the Council’s offices. The Council’s interpretation of section 3.3.2.5 is not unreasonable, given the facts and the limitations imposed on it by the applicable legal framework. [ 84 ] The applicant’s argument that he was prevented from signing the Objections Register because of his working hours and the hours the Objections Register was open is contradicted by the evidence in the record. The applicant could have signed the Objections Register if he had wanted to, and he was not unable to do so because of his working hours. [ 85 ] The applicant has not established that the Council’s interpretation of section 3.3.2.5 of the 2007 By-law or its implementation is unreasonable. (3) The Failure to Consult Members [ 86 ] Section 3.3.2.6 provides that the Council must hold a public consultation before adopting the amending by-law if more than 50 people have signed the Objections Register. [ 87 ] The undisputed evidence in the record is that only 16 individuals expressed their opposition to the proposed amending by-law during the objection period. Given that the number of opponents was far below the minimum threshold of 50 signatures to require public consultation under section 3.3.2.6, the Council could have consulted the public on [NAME] prior to adopting the amending by-law if it wished, but it was not required to do so. [ 88 ] The applicant’s argument that the Council’s failure to hold a public consultation vitiates the procedure followed for the adoption of By-law 2022-01 is unfounded and must be rejected. (4) The Failure to Amend the By-law Before Obtaining a Certificate of Compliance [ 89 ] The applicant alleges in his Notice of Application that the Council never attempted to rezone Lots 107 and 108 before obtaining a Certificate of Compliance to begin construction work on [NAME]. This allegation has no impact on the judicial review of Resolution 7337 or By-law 2022-01 sought in the Notice of Application. It is therefore unnecessary to make any finding in this respect.

VIII. Conclusion and Costs [ 90 ] The applicant had the burden of establishing that Resolution 7337 and By-law 2022‑01 are unreasonable and invalid because they do not comply with the [NAME] or the amendment process under the 2007 By-law. The applicant has not discharged his burden. His application will therefore be dismissed. [ 91 ] The Council seeks its costs in this proceeding. [ 92 ] [ADDRESS] strongly encourages the parties to confer and attempt to reach agreement on appropriate costs for this proceeding before May 6, 2026. If the parties agree on costs by that date, they may submit a letter to the Registry, to my attention, setting out their agreement on costs. If the Court finds that these costs are appropriate, an order for costs setting out the terms of the agreement will be made. [ 93 ] In the event that the parties do not agree on costs, the Council will have until May 7, 2026, to serve and file its submissions on costs, which must not exceed three double‑spaced pages, exclusive of schedules, appendices and authorities. The applicant will then have until May 21, 2026, to serve and file his submissions on costs, which must also not exceed three double‑spaced pages, exclusive of schedules, appendices and authorities. [ 94 ] No costs will be awarded if the parties fail to file a letter of agreement by May 6, 2026, or if the Council fails to serve and file its submissions on costs by May 7, 2026.

JUDGMENT in T-1811-22 THE COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. The award of costs relating to this proceeding is reserved until the parties file their submissions on costs in accordance with the directions given above. “[NAME]” Judge Certified true translation [NAME], Senior jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1811-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v COUNCIL OF THE [NAME] OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 14, 2025

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS BY: [NAME] J DATE OF

REASONS: APRIL 21, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] Québec, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT