Décision

1.                 OVERVIEW

1.    The City of Kirkland (the City) is seeking various orders, mainly to demolish the building owned by Stephen Larocque, pursuant to the Act respecting land use planning and development[1] (the Act), given safety and security concerns.
2.    Since the beginning of legal proceedings in October 2022, the City has documented, through inspections and expert reports, the deterioration of the Defendant’s property located at 80 Argyle Street. Over time, the preponderant evidence shows several non-compliances with applicable municipal by-laws about building occupancy, maintenance and nuisances, which endure to this day.
3.    The Defendant is self-represented and he contests the City’s claim, which he finds unfounded.
4.    For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the City has met its burden of proof and established that the Defendant’s building constitutes a danger and that it has lost one-half of its value. Accordingly, in the absence of another useful remedy, its demolition is justified. The City also justified the additional orders sought.

2.        SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

5.    The Defendant’s house at 80 Argyle Street in Kirkland was built in 1974[2] and he purchased it in 1995.[3]
6.    In August 2022, further to nuisance complaints by the Defendant’s neighbours, the City’s representatives visited his property to verify compliance with municipal by-laws. The Defendant denied access to the building.
7.    During an outside inspection in September 2022, the City observed non-compliances with municipal regulations, such as By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance,[4] By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances,[5] By-Law 2013-55 regarding traffic and parking,[6] and the Zoning By-Law 90-58.[7] The specific findings are documented in a report.[8] Amongst other things, there was an odour of urine on the property, unlicensed motor vehicles were parked in an area not designed for this purpose, there were several miscellaneous objects on the property causing uncleanliness or obstruction, and it is noted that a terrasse and a back balcony are not in a good state.
8.    The September 2022 report and the City’s subsequent reports are all signed by Alexandre Gervais, who was the City’s Division Manager for the urban planning and environment department until August 2024, when he became the Director of the same department. Gervais[9] testified at trial.
9.    As the Defendant continued to deny access to his residence, on November 1, 2022, the City obtained a Court order signed by the Honourable Justice Michèle Monast, authorizing it to enter the premises, for the purpose of investigating compliance with the City’s regulations.
10.            During a visit in November 2022, Gervais documented several regulatory non-compliances inside and outside the house.[10] Inside, he observed, for instance: miscellaneous objects and debris in most of the rooms; the presence of insects and vermin excrements; obvious traces of water infiltration and mould; the absence of running water and functional sanitary facilities; a non-functional kitchen; and signs of construction works carried out without a permit. Outside, an accumulation of debris was observed, the front fence and back balcony were in a state of disrepair, and vehicles were parked in improper areas and filled with various objects.
11.            On February 20 and 24, 2023, Gervais returned to the Defendant’s house for another inspection, with the City’s experts. The specific findings of that inspection are described by Gervais in a report, which includes several pictures.[11]
12.            Once again, many non-compliances with the municipal by-laws listed above are reported: the Defendant’s building is poorly maintained; the majority of the rooms are filled with building materials, furniture and debris causing uncleanliness; there is water infiltration, mould and rot, with conditions favouring their proliferation in many rooms of the residence; there are no functional sanitary facilities or running water; there are rodents’ excrements; the back balcony was still in poor condition; and out of order motor vehicles and debris were lying on the ground in front of the house. The overall conclusion is that the building is so unsanitary that a human being cannot live in it and carry out basic daily activities.
13.            Based on the information collected during the February 2023 visit, the City obtained and filed three expert reports, which were served on the Defendant: 1) two reports signed by Danny Kack, an engineer and general contractor,[12] dated May 4 and June 26, 2023;[13] and 2) one report signed by Luc Héroux, a real estate appraiser, dated June 15, 2023.[14]
14.            Briefly stated, Kack finds that the Defendant’s building is in a pitiful state. He describes the presence of many water infiltrations with mould and rot; uncleanliness and obstructions were noted everywhere; there were debris, animal excrements and foul odours; there was no functional heating system; humidity levels were abnormally high; there was no running water and no plumbing system, which are normally required to maintain personal hygiene; in addition, exposed electric cables created a hazard. Kack is therefore of the view that the residence must be declared unsanitary and unsafe for anyone occupying the building.
15.            Kack also concludes that the Defendant’s property has lost almost all of its value and that only the foundations can be preserved, subject to their decontamination. All electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems are not compliant with applicable regulations. Considering all of the circumstances, Kack is of the view that there is no other suitable remedy but to demolish the Defendant’s house.
16.            According to Héroux, the replacement cost of the Defendant’s building, which was valued at $396,300 on the last municipal assessment roll, would be of $499,000. He notes that several components of the house have reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Based on Kack’s report, Héroux is of the view that the Defendant’s house has a depreciated value by 77%, equivalent to $113,000. The demolition costs would be about $29,000.
17.            In June 2023, Gervais conducted another inspection of the Defendant’s property, limited to the outside.[15] Regulatory non-compliances of the same nature as those observed previously were again reported.
18.            In July 2023, during a case management hearing presided by the Honourable Justice Bernard Synnott, at which the Defendant was present, the trial in this matter was scheduled for two days on March 6 and 7, 2025. A deadline was set for the Defendant to produce an expert report, if he chose to do so. The delay was extended but the Defendant never filed such a report into the Court record.
19.            In September 2023, Gervais returned to the Defendant’s property for an update. In his report,[16] he documented ongoing issues outside the house: for instance, the back balcony and the garage were in an inadequate state, the latter missing a door; there was still an accumulation of miscellaneous objects outside; there were wild plants taller than 20 centimetres in the yard. However, the front fence had been repaired and all the vehicles had been removed from the premises.
20.            In February 2025, in view of the upcoming trial, the City conducted another inspection of the Defendant’s property, including the inside of the building.[17] The report that Gervais signed after the inspection describes several regulatory non-compliances, such as: signs of water infiltrations with mould and rot in different parts of the house; a strong odour of humidity; he mentions there is no heating system, no running water nor functional sanitary installations[18]; there are dead rodents and excrements, in addition to unfinished construction works, and miscellaneous debris and objects causing uncleanliness. The conclusion is that the building is in an insalubrious and dangerous condition for humans.
21.            Outside, the February 2025 visit revealed that the back balcony and roof asphalt shingles were not in a good state, and that several motor vehicles and one trailer were stored on the front grounds.
22.            The trial that took place in March 2025 was challenging on several fronts. On the first day, the Defendant requested a postponement of the hearing, which was denied. As the Defendant was representing himself, the undersigned explained the legal process to him, sharing general information and guidance without providing advice, as an impartial third party.  
23.            In support of its position, the City presented four witnesses: Gervais and the experts Kack and Héroux, both of whom explained the contents of their reports, as well as Stephen Bouchard, a Kirkland city counsellor.
24.            For his part, the Defendant testified and called his 80-year-old mother, Nicole Larocque, as a witness. He filed a few pictures into evidence.
25.            Essentially, while the Defendant recognizes that his home suffers from some issues, he is of the view that its state does not justify its demolition. He claims that he works as a general contractor and that he recently made some repairs on the house. He disapproves of the City’s approach in dealing with his property and submits that its representatives have planted evidence in his house to support their claim. His mother also believes the same thing and their personal opinion is that the house is safe.
26.            On the second day of the trial, the Defendant wanted to produce a document as an expert report. The City objected and the objection was maintained because it was not filed into the Court record on time and its author was not available to testify and answer questions from the adverse party.
27.            That said, every effort has been made to allow the Defendant with the opportunity to defend himself, in consideration of the Court’s duty to treat the parties fairly, all the while upholding the rules of civil procedure.

3.        ISSUES IN DISPUTE

28.            This matter primarily requires the Court to determine whether the demolition of the Defendant’s building located at 80 Argyle Street in Kirkland is justified, pursuant to the criteria set out at Section 231 of the Act. The Court must also decide whether the City established that its requests for other injunctive orders are well-founded, in view of the applicable by-laws.

4.        LEGAL PRINCIPLES

29.            The City’s request to demolish the Defendant’s building is based on Sections 231 and 232 of the Act, which read as follows:

231. Where a structure is in such a condition as to constitute a danger to persons or where it has lost one-half of its value through decay, fire or explosion, the Superior Court may, on application by the responsible body, the municipality, or any interested person, order the carrying out of the works required to ensure the safety of persons or, if there is no other useful remedy, the demolition of the structure. The court may order the owner or the person having custody of the structure to keep the structure under adequate surveillance until the imposed corrective measure has been carried out. It may authorize the responsible body or the municipality to ensure surveillance at the owner’s expense if the owner or person having custody of the structure fails to comply with the court judgment.

Where the matter is exceptionally urgent, the court may authorize the responsible body or the municipality to carry out the work or to proceed with the demolition without further delay, and the responsible body or the municipality may claim the cost thereof from the owner of the building. The court may also, in all cases, enjoin the persons living in the building to vacate it within the time it fixes.

232. An application made under sections 227 to 231 is heard and decided by preference.

Where the application is for the carrying out of works or demolition, the court may, if the owner or the person having custody of the immovable fails to proceed therewith within the allotted time, authorize the responsible body or the municipality to proceed therewith at the expense of the owner of the immovable.

[Emphasis added.]

30.            The case law confirms that, despite the wording of Section 231 which implies mutually exclusive conditions, an order for demolition can only be considered when two elements are demonstrated: 1) that the structure constitutes a danger to persons, and 2) that this structure has lost one-half of its value.[19] Once these factors have been proven, the demolition of the property may be ordered by the Superior Court, if it is satisfied that there is “no other useful remedy”.
31.            Pursuant to Section 231, the notion of “danger to persons” is assessed globally and it includes the public interest, taking into account the risks to occupants of the building, intruders, neighbours, passers-by and workers on the premises.[20]
32.            Under the same provision, a structure is considered to have lost more than half of its value due to decay when the depreciation is greater than the cost of repairs required to make it safe.[21] Despite the technical possibility of carrying out corrective works to make a building safe, demolition will remain the only useful remedy if the cost of repairs renders this option impracticable, when exceeding the property’s value.[22]

5.        ANALYSIS

33.            After providing some introductory comments, the Court will address the City’s request to demolish the Defendant’s property, and will then review the merits of additional orders sought.

5.1   General Comments

34.            Judgments are rendered based on the law and the evidence presented by the parties. While the Court acknowledges that navigating through the legal process may be challenging for a self-represented party, as pointed out during the hearing, the rules of civil procedure apply to all litigants whether or not they are assisted by a lawyer.[23]
35.            The City’s position is supported by six inspection reports produced after visits at the Defendant’s property that took place between September 2022 and February 2025. Gervais explained the findings made during these visits, which are also documented by many pictures. In addition, the City filed three expert reports, i.e. two from Kack and one by Héroux, along with the pictures they took. The experts explained their positions in an objective fashion during their testimony and the Court confers great weight to their conclusions.
36.            As for the Defendant, he provided his testimony and that of his mother, to contest the City’s claim. His position is not supported by an expert.
37.            It must be stated that several contradictions negatively affect the Defendant’s credibility and the reliability of his testimony. For instance, on a video recording of 2022,[24] he claims that he does not live and has not lived at 80 Argyle Street for about 20 years, but at trial he states that he has been residing there since his tenants left in 2020.[25] On the first day of the trial, he asked to postpone the hearing because some witnesses were not available, including his mother who he said was hospitalized. However, the Defendant brought his mother in Court the next day and she testified having been released from the hospital at the end of February.
38.            Moreover, although the Defendant claims not to understand French, he objected during testimonies in that language and cross-examined the City’s witnesses about what they had stated. Overall, the Defendant’s testimony is thus at best unreliable.

5.2   Request for Demolition

39.            For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the demolition of the Defendant’s building located on Argyle Street is justified. Indeed, the City has demonstrated by preponderant expert evidence, which is not challenged by another expert, that the Defendant’s building constitutes a danger to persons and that it has lost more than one-half of its value due to decay.
40.            In particular, Kack supported this conclusion, both in his capacity as an engineer and as a general contractor. Héroux, for his part, addressed the more specific topic of the residence’s value.
41.            The evidence is eloquent regarding the dangers of the Defendant’s building. Several pictures since 2022 show a significantly damaged building, and Kack testified, based on his visit of the premises, as to the widespread problems in the dwelling, in several rooms: primarily water infiltrations, excessive humidity and inadequate heating, accelerating rot and mould issues. He explained the lack of general maintenance and the state of uncleanliness of the property, which has reached the end of its useful life. The presence of rodents, as evidenced by their excrements, is also troubling. Moreover, Kack attested to significant deficiencies in the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems, leading to unsanitary conditions. Overall, Kack is convinced that the house is unsafe.
42.            In view of the 2025 inspection report by Gervais, which was reviewed by Kack and Héroux, both experts explained that the condition of the Defendant’s house deteriorated since 2023 and is even worse now.
43.            There is no indication of significant repairs to the building or its structure by the Defendant, to address the numerous problems proven by the City’s evidence.
44.            In addition, Héroux established the physical depreciation factor of the Defendant’s building at 77%, for a resulting value of $113,000, considering replacement costs of $499,000. Héroux explained that he took into account a general depreciation of 50% based on the age of the building which did not undergo major repairs since 1974, and then modulated with percentages according to the condition of the residence’s components, for an overall depreciation factor of 77%.
45.            After reviewing the 2025 inspection report by Gervais, Héroux testified that the depreciation of the Defendant’s house could have gone up to 80% of its value.[26]
46.            As such, the preponderant evidence not only supports the finding that the Defendant’s building is a danger to persons, but it also confirms that it has lost more than half of its value.
47.            Based on this overwhelming evidence, Kack concludes that there is no useful remedy other than to demolish the Defendant’s building, because it cannot be fixed. Kack goes as far as to state that no general contractor should accept to repair a structure in such a state of decay and degradation.
48.            The Defendant attempted to attack the City’s experts’ conclusions, but did not present any expert evidence to support his position.
49.            In fact, the only document of that nature that the Defendant wished the Court to consider, but which was rejected further to an objection as he had failed to file it into the record in due time and did not call an expert to answer questions in this regard, did not support his position either. Rather, the document concluded that the house is unsafe and needs urgent repairs.[27]
50.            The Defendant cannot act as an expert in his own case. Even though he explained that he performs general contractor duties and that he may have some knowledge in this area, he did not prove the scope of his experience and the Court cannot consider his personal opinions as proven, which would also raise issues as to his impartiality.
51.            Moreover, the renovations performed by the Defendant on the building appear to be minor or targeted repairs. For instance, he claims that, since 2022, he changed the gutters, the garage door and some windows. He would also have changed some studs in the kitchen. He recognized that there have been no repairs on the roof since 2022. He did remove some mould on his own, in selected areas of the house, but he did not call a firm specialized in decontamination. He filed six pictures showing damaged walls and what he claims to be new studs.[28] The Defendant did not produce any receipts regarding the materials he claims to have used for these repairs and he asks to be taken at his word. However, as pointed out above, there are serious issues with his credibility.
52.            In such circumstances, the Court considers that the evidence submitted by the City is more reliable and persuasive. For instance, Kack testified that he saw signs of significant damage on all floors of the house, in the form of decay, water infiltration or mould. Even if the Court accepted that the Defendant has recently completed some repairs, these are likely inconsequential given the magnitude of the deterioration observed by the City’s experts. The Defendant failed to disprove the general conclusion that the overall structure constitutes a danger and is greatly depreciated.
53.            Put another way, the Court concludes that the preponderant evidence shows that there were no significant repairs done since 2022 when the City started to document the numerous defects of the building, which establish that it poses a danger to persons. The evidence presented by the Defendant is insufficient to counter this conclusion.
54.            The finding of dangerosity is reinforced by health-related issues in connection with the building. Although there are some minor contradictions in the evidence on this topic, the overall picture is far from reassuring.
55.            The City’s witnesses point out that there was no functional toilet, nor running water at the time of their visit in 2023. The Defendant claims that there is now a toilet in his bedroom, which has been barricaded, and to which the City did not have access. He filed four pictures showing a bathroom sink and a toilet, all with water.[29]
56.            In view of the timeline, one can conclude that, at some point, there was an issue about the house’s connection with the City’s sewer water system, as Bouchard and other citizens complained of the Defendant urinating and throwing human waste on the street.[30] During the 2025 visit by the City, the Defendant prevented access to the second floor bathroom and has not convincingly established that his sanitary appliances are functional. That being said, even if the Court accepted his contention that there are now a functional bathroom sink and toilet, this is insufficient to conclude that the house is fit and safe for human occupation.
57.            In this regard, it should be noted that, at the time of the last visit in February 2025, the City documented dead rodents in the Defendant’s property, the presence of which is also supported by animal excrements on the premises since 2022. The Defendant claims that the City planted this evidence in his house and his mother states the same. This assertion is implausible.
58.            The Defendant also failed to show that security issues related to electrical and heating problems have been adequately resolved. He stated that he recently installed baseboard heaters in some rooms, but the Court does not have information on the scope of such works. The Defendant did not contest that there is no general electrical system for the house.
59.            On this topic, Kack explained that during his visit in February 2023, he measured humidity levels of about 60.5% in the house, which he states are abnormally elevated, as those usually range from 30% to 40% in the winter. The Defendant has not demonstrated that the space heaters that he recently installed resolved this issue. When Gervais visited in February 2025, he noted that the inside of the house was so cold that water bottles in the kitchen were frozen. These elements are important as humidity and temperature can accelerate the proliferation of decay and mould.
60.            The Defendant’s use of the residence appears to be limited to the master bedroom. This does not make his house anymore suitable for habitation.
61.            To summarize, all things being considered, the Court concludes that the criteria of Section 231 of the Act have been satisfied and that the demolition of the Defendant’s building at 80 Argyle Street is justified.
62.            As a matter of fact, the City’s inspection visits described many recurring non-compliances with regulations adopted to protect the public, the extent and gravity of which are relevant when considering the merits of a demolition request, in the absence of any corrective work plan submitted by the Defendant:[31]
    1.        Regarding the By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance: the building is not maintained in a good state of conservation, including its roof and balcony (art. 10 and art. 11); at times, it was not closed in such a way as to prevent entry through its openings (art. 12); the presence of miscellaneous objects and vermin causing a state of uncleanliness (art. 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5); signs of water infiltration, mould and rot, as well as conditions promoting their proliferation (art. 9.7); lack of or significant issues with the sanitary appliances in several rooms (art. 9.9);
    2.        With respect to other regulations, such as the National Building Code[32], the Plumbing Code of Québec and the Electrical Code: Kack explained that all electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems are not compliant with current standards.[33]
63.            In these circumstances, based on the expert evidence presented by Kack, the Court finds that the Defendant’s house must be declared unsanitary and unsafe, as it presents an unacceptable risk resulting in danger for its occupants or intruders. This conclusion is also supported by Gervais’s statement, further to his visit in 2025, confirming an extraordinary feeling of insecurity, prompting him not to linger, in the face of the danger created by the decayed structure.
64.            Insofar as the value of the property is concerned, the expert opinion of Héroux confirms that the Defendant’s building has lost more than one-half of its value due to decay.
65.            As mentioned above, there is inconclusive evidence as to whether the Defendant is currently residing on Argyle Street, with his 80-year-old mother or not. Being the caregiver of his mother, the Defendant visits her regularly in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, where she owns a residence. Should they live in the house in dispute, there are well-founded concerns for their health and safety. In any event, as established by the case law applying Section 231 of the Act, the concept of danger is considered broadly as to include the risk to the public, which has been demonstrated here, as the Defendant stated he sometimes leaves his door unlocked and there is thus the possibility of third parties entering his property.
66.            One way or another, the demolition of the Defendant’s building is justified, in the absence of any “other useful remedy”.
67.            Given the uncontradicted expert evidence, the Court must conclude that the Defendant’s residence is beyond repair. Replacement costs would far exceed the current value of the house.[34] According to Kack, also a general contractor, it is unthinkable to fix the dwelling where only the foundations can be preserved, after decontamination.
68.            The Defendant recognizes that there are issues with his house, but he holds the personal belief that they are insufficient to justify its demolition. He argues that the property has not collapsed and is not on the verge of collapsing. In some cases, such an extreme scenario may justify demolition of a property by municipal authorities. However, this is not the legal criteria for demolition under Section 231 of the Act, set out earlier in this judgment, and referring to concepts of danger to persons, loss of value and absence of another useful remedy.
69.            The City began legal proceedings in this matter in 2022 and it is seeking to demolish the Defendant’s property through specific conclusions modified in July 2023,[35] i.e. more than a year and a half ago. Yet, the Defendant has still not addressed most of the regulatory non-compliances denounced in the City’s inspection reports dating back to 2022, nor in the three expert reports also served to him.[36] The Defendant did not submit a corrective work plan for his residence, nor did he request a permit for the minor repairs he carried out.
70.            Despite the time elapsed before proceeding to trial in March 2025, the Defendant has not demonstrated that there is a useful remedy other than demolition. He pleaded the issue at trial and that is all.
71.            The Defendant minimizes the extent of issues with his property, which he believes are limited to some areas that he could repair, but this remains his personal opinion.
72.            In accordance with the Act, the City therefore justified an order enjoining the Defendant to proceed with the demolition of his building within thirty (30) days of the service of the present judgment,[37] failing which the City may do so at the Defendant’s expense, as provided by law.[38] In such a case, the costs of demolition incurred by the City will be secured by a legal hypothec on the immovable.[39]

5.3   Other Issues

73.            The preponderant evidence establishes that the Defendant’s property is in contravention of several municipal by-laws concerning occupancy, maintenance and nuisances.
74.            More particularly, amongst others, the following non-compliances have been demonstrated, in relation with the conclusions sought by the City:
    1.        Out of order motor vehicles are stored in an area not designed for this purpose, along with various objects, contrary to Zoning By-Law 90-58 and By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances;
    2.        There is an accumulation of miscellaneous objects on the property, causing a state of uncleanliness, contrary to By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances;
    3.        The balcony at the back of the building is not in a good state of conservation, contrary to By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance;
    4.        Grass or wild plants around the property have grown taller than 20 centimetres, contrary to By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances.
75.            The situation of regulatory non-compliances has been ongoing for several years. Despite some corrections made by the Defendant, the problems persist. For instance, in September 2023, the Defendant removed the motor vehicles found in front of his property, but other vehicles reappeared later in February 2025. The amount and nature of debris accumulated outside may have varied from time to time, but the evidence shows that the issue is not resolved. There is no proof that the terrasse and back exterior balcony have been fixed. However, the front fence was repaired in 2023.
76.            Pursuant to the Municipal Powers Act,[40] the City can ask the Superior Court to order the owner of the property to take the required steps to address an unsanitary condition or nuisances and, on failure to do so, the City may take steps to resolve the issues at the expense of the owner.[41]
77.            At the time of the trial, the Court asked the City to update their conclusions to reflect the current state of facts as regards the Defendant’s property.
78.            In the Court’s view, the overall evidence supports a finding that most of the orders sought by the City are justified,[42] to force the Defendant to comply with the applicable municipal by-laws.[43]
79.            Court orders must be precise so that they are executable. Accordingly, the Court has reformulated or clarified the scope of some of the conclusions sought, to avoid future conflicts between the parties. In addition, the Court will specify that the injunctive order issued by the Honourable Michèle Monast on November 1, 2022, will cease to have effect in six months, unless it is renewed. Indeed, this interim order was meant to enable the City to inspect the Defendant’s property in the context of this case. As the present judgment disposes of the merits of the City’s claim, this order cannot remain in effect forever. This conclusion does not preclude the City to seek another order, if need be, depending on the evolution of the matter.
80.            Finally, the Court will not grant the City’s request for the provisional execution of the present judgment notwithstanding appeal. The proceedings were instituted in 2022 and, although the situation reveals some urgency, it has not been shown to be sufficiently imminent to justify departing from the general rule that a judgment becomes enforceable after appeal deadlines have lapsed.

6.        CONCLUSIONS

81.            In view of the relevant legal criteria and the evidence adduced at trial, the Court concludes that the City has met its burden of proof and justified the demolition of the Defendant’s building under Section 231 of the Act. The Defendant must also comply with other applicable by-laws.
82.            As indicated in the following conclusions, should the Defendant fail to demolish his house, the City will be allowed to take measures in this regard and claim the related costs from the Defendant.
83.            During the trial, the undersigned expressed concerns for the Defendant and his mother, if they indeed live in such an environment as they contend they do, although there are doubts on this issue. Obviously, the demolition of the Defendant’s building entails serious consequences for him and the Court is aware that this is not the judgment that he was hoping for. However, justice according to law is the only guide and cannot be driven by sympathy alone. That being said, the Court is somewhat comforted that the Defendant and his mother have access to the latter’s residence and will not find themselves without a roof over their heads.
84.            As per the usual rule, legal costs, including expert costs, are owed to the party that is successful,[44] namely the City in this case.
85.            The expert evidence of Kack and Héroux was useful for the Court’s findings and their respective invoices total $14,525.95 and $6,731.22, including their testimony at trial.[45] After reviewing this evidence, the Court arbitrates the total reasonable amount of expert costs at $18,000.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

As regards the building:

86.            GRANTS the Plaintiff’s judicial application for the issuance of an order based on Sections 231 & ss. of the Act respecting land use planning and development (RLRQ c. A-19.1);
87.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to demolish and dismantle the main building erected upon the property and currently standing at 80 Argyle Street, namely lot number 1 992 577 of the Québec Cadastre (hereinafter, the « Property »), within thirty (30) days of service of this Judgment;
88.            DECLARES that the Plaintiff must collaborate with the Defendant to issue the demolition permit within the best possible delays, in order to enable the Defendant to comply with this Judgment;
89.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees, in the context of the demolition works ordered by the Court, to remove and eliminate any and all sources of nuisance so the Property is compliant with the provisions of the By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances (exhibit P-3);
90.            More specifically, ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to dispose of any and all waste, garbage, and debris generated throughout the works to be performed as ordered above (within collection sites suited for that purpose) and, if need be, to restore the land to its former condition, within thirty (30) days of service of this Judgment;
91.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to secure, by means of a rigid metal fence measuring at least six feet (6’) high, the area where the works described above will be carried out;

As regards the land:

92.            GRANTS the Plaintiff’s judicial application for the issuance of an order based on Section 58 of the Municipal Powers Act (RLRQ c. C-47.1) and on Section 227 of the Act respecting land use planning and development (RLRQ c. A-19.1);
93.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to remove (or make sure that are removed) the miscellaneous objects found all over the land – including, without being limited to, construction debris, equipment, materials, and other things (garbage, domestic waste, construction scraps, tires, cones, ladders, shovels, wheelbarrows, plastic/polymer tarps, chairs, cabinets, pipes, ducts, furniture, appliances, and toys such as bikes, plastic pools, and miniature trucks) found on or about the Property known as 80 Argyle Street (namely, lot number 1 992 577 of the Québec Cadastre), and then dispose of such objects within collection sites suited for that purpose within fifteen (15) days of service of this Judgment;
94.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to dismantle and remove the outdoor terrace and balcony configured in the back of the Property;
95.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees, within fifteen (15) days of service of this Judgment, to move all the motor vehicles that are currently parked on the Property in violation of the relevant by-laws - By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances (exhibit P-3) and By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance (exhibit P-2) – including:

• Black Cadillac SRX - K80 JKX - 3GYFNDEY3BS649198

• Silver Buick LeSabre GM - M93 YYD - 1G4HR54K9YU225454

• White GMC Suburban truck - M99 RSJ - 1GKGK26R3XJ751659

• Black Corvette convertible - 916 SDF

• Green GMC Chevrolet pick-up truck (no visible license plate, previously plated as M42 NFT)

96.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to trim the surrounding grass or wild plants on the Property, and to maintain it no taller than twenty (20) centimetres;
97.            ORDERS the Defendant and his representatives, agents, or assignees to keep the Property free and devoid of any accessory, motor vehicle, or object other than a six (6)-foot-high rigid metal fence until another main building is erected upon the Property – the whole in accordance with the provisions of the By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance (exhibit P-2);

SHOULD THE DEFENDANT, HIS REPRESENTATIVES, HIS AGENTS, OR HIS ASSIGNEES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS JUDGMENT:

98.            AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents to access the Defendant’s Property in order to enforce this Judgment – if need be, while being accompanied by a locksmith as well as by police officers;
99.            More specifically, AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, to demolish and dismantle (or make arrangements to have demolished and dismantled), at the Defendant’s expense, the main building currently standing at 80 Argyle Street, namely lot number 1 992 577 of the Québec Cadastre (hereinafter, the « Property »);
100.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents to access the defendant’s Property in order to clear the land (or make arrangements to have said land cleared) of the miscellaneous objects found all over it – including, without being limited to, construction debris, equipment, materials, and other things (garbage, domestic waste, construction scraps, tires, cones, ladders, shovels, wheelbarrows, plastic/polymer tarps, chairs, cabinets, pipes, ducts, furniture, appliances, and toys such as bikes, plastic pools, and miniature trucks) – the whole at the Defendant’s expense;
101.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents to access the Defendant’s Property in order to dismantle and remove the outdoor terrace and balcony configured in the back of the Property;
102.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents to access the Defendant’s Property, after fifteen (15) days of service of this Judgment, in order to move all the motor vehicles that are currently parked on the Property in violation of the relevant zoning by-law - By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances (exhibit P-3) and By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance (exhibit P-2) – including:

• Black Cadillac SRX - K80 JKX - 3GYFNDEY3BS649198

• Silver Buick LeSabre GM - M93 YYD - 1G4HR54K9YU225454

• White GMC Suburban truck - M99 RSJ - 1GKGK26R3XJ751659

• Black Corvette convertible - 916 SDF

• Green GMC Chevrolet pick-up truck (no visible license plate, previously plated as M42 NFT)

103.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff and its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents to access the Defendant’s Property in order to trim the surrounding grass or wild plants on the Property, and to maintain it no taller than twenty (20) centimetres;
104.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to request the assistance of police officers, firemen, or any other resources they will deem necessary whenever accessing the Defendant’s Property;
105.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to request the towing of any and all motor vehicles found on, within, or about the Defendant’s Property (including those listed above) and to have said vehicles driven to an authorized impoundment lot and then disposed of – any and all transportation, storage, and disposal costs to be charged to the Defendant;
106.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to remove and eliminate any and all sources of nuisance so the Property, if need be, becomes and remains compliant with the By-Law 2013-54 relating to nuisances (exhibit P-3);
107.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to dispose (within collection sites suited for that purpose) of the miscellaneous objects currently found all over the land and to be cleared away in accordance with this Judgment – including, without being limited to, construction debris, equipment, materials, and other things (garbage, domestic waste, construction scraps, tires, cones, ladders, shovels, wheelbarrows, plastic/polymer tarps, chairs, cabinets, pipes, ducts, furniture, appliances, and toys such as bikes, plastic pools, and miniature trucks);
108.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to carry out any and all work required in order to make the Defendant’s Property compliant with applicable municipal by-laws once demolition and clean-up operations will be complete – especially for the restoration of the land to its former condition (should it be needed);
109.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff, its employees, clerks, attendants, or agents, or any other individual to whom the Plaintiff entrusted the task of enforcing this Judgment to keep the Property free and devoid of any accessory, motor vehicle, or object other than a six (6)-foot-high rigid metal fence until another main building is erected upon the Property – the whole in accordance with the provisions of the By-Law 2016-53 concerning building occupancy and maintenance (exhibit P-2);
110.        DECLARES that all the costs incurred in order to enforce this Judgment regarding the Property’s demolition and to make it compliant with the Plaintiff’s by-laws are to be assimilated to real estate taxes and constitute a prior claim against said Property (of the same nature and with the same rank as the claims described in Section 2651 (para. 5) of the Civil Code of Québec) to be secured by means of a legal hypothec;
111.        DECLARES that all the costs associated with the work carried out by the Plaintiff as a result of this judgment are to be assimilated to real estate taxes assessed against the Defendant’s Property in the manner provided for in Section 96 of the Municipal Powers Act (RLRQ c. C-47.1);
112.        AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff (in the event that the Defendant fails to comply with this Judgment) to sell the motor vehicles it towed and impounded and to allocate any and all sales proceeds to the payment of the costs it incurred in order to comply with this Judgment – being understood and agreed that any balance is to be returned to the Defendant;
113.        DECLARES that the effects of the injunctive order issued by the Honourable Justice Michèle Monast on November 1, 2022, will come to an end in six months from the date of the present judgment, unless it is renewed;
114.        ALLOWS the Plaintiff to serve a copy of the present judgment outside of regular business hours and on a non-juridical day;
115.        EXEMPTS the Plaintiff from providing a suretyship;
116.        WITH legal costs, including expert costs in the amount of $18,000.

[1]  RLRQ, c. A-19.1.

[2]  Exhibit P-15, Appendix B.

[3]  Exhibit P-1.

[4]  Exhibit P-2.

[5]  Exhibit P-3.

[6]  Exhibit P-4.

[7]  Exhibit P-5.

[8]  Exhibit P-6.

[9]  Throughout this judgment, the use of family names is intended to simplify the text and should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect.

[10]  Exhibit P-11.

[11]  Exhibit P-12.

[12]  Kack’s résumé is found at exhibit P-18 and he holds a RBQ licence in construction and renovation.

[13]  Exhibit P-15.

[14]  Exhibit P-14.

[15]  Exhibit P-13.

[16]  Exhibit P-17.

[17]  Exhibit P-19.

[18]  The report specifies that access to some spaces of the Defendant’s house, such as the bathroom on the second floor, had been barricaded so that no one could have access to it.

[19]  Lac-des-Plages (Municipalité de) v. Jodoin, 2010 QCCS 3450, paras. 176-179 (appeal dismissed : 2010 QCCA 2094) (Jodoin); Ville de Montréal v. 9411-8585 Québec inc., 2023 QCCS 1142, para. 49.

[20]  Gestion NDI Champlain v. Ville de Gatineau, 2024 QCCS 308, para. 76; Projets Knightsbridge inc. v. Montréal (Ville de), 2013 QCCS 7078, paras. 23 and 40 (Projets Knightsbridge); Jodoin, supra note 19, para. 205.

[21]  Jodoin, supra note 19, paras. 187-188

[22]  Projets Knightsbridge, supra note 20, paras. 37-38; Ville de Montréal v. 9411-8585 Québec inc., 2023 QCCS 1142, paras. 60-61.

[23]  Art. 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

[24]  Exhibit P-9.

[25]  The Defendant’s mother initially testified that she is currently living with her son at 80 Argyle Street in Kirkland, but she afterwards stated that she is residing in Dollard des Ormeaux. This evidence is therefore inconclusive.

[26]  Héroux explained that the 20% for residual value would be associated with the foundations of the building, which could be preserved as explained by Kack, subject to adequate decontamination.

[27]  The conclusion of the 6-page document dated 2024 by Bâtitech Conseil reads as follows: “Overall, the structural inspection of 80 Rue Argyle revealed that the property in its current state is unsafe, and these corrections must be initiated urgently.”

[28]  Exhibits D-1 and D-3.

[29]  Exhibit D-1.

[30]  Exhibits P-8 and P-20, as well as the testimony of Bouchard.

[31]  Art. 227 of the Act also recognizes that the Superior Court may order the demolition of a structure, short of another useful remedy, when it is used in a manner incompatible with zoning or building by-laws, for instance: see Municipalité de Saint-François-du-Lac v. Rainville, 2022 QCCA 1683, paras. 21-23.

[32]  The City’s Construction By-Law 90-60 (Appendix 3 of exhibit P-15) expressly refers to the National Building Code (art. 2.1) and the Plumbing Code of Québec (art. 2.2).

[33]  Exhibit P-15, page 43. The City’s Construction By-Law 90-60 (Appendix 3 of exhibit P-15) requires the owner of a building which is in an unsafe condition, to take all necessary actions to put it in a safe condition (art. 2.11).

[34]  In his June 26, 2023 report (exhibit P-15), Kack assessed the overall reconstruction costs at $528,000.

[35]  On July 17, 2023, the Defendant was served with this proceeding personally, “en mains propres”, as the report of the bailiff confirms: exhibit P-21.

[36]  The three expert reports were served in June 2023: exhibit P-21.

[37]  The City must collaborate with the Defendant and issue the demolition permit in the best possible delays, in order to enable him to comply with this Judgment.

[38]  Section 232 of the Act.

[39]  Section 233 of the Act.

[40]  RLRQ, c. C-47.1

[41]  Art. 57-58 and 61 of the Municipal Powers Act; see also art. 227 of the Act.

[42]  The Court will not grant the order regarding the front fence, as the evidence shows it was repaired in 2023. The list of vehicles to be removed from the front of the Defendant’s property will also be limited to the most recent description provided by the City: exhibit P-19.

[43]  It is noteworthy that, if the Defendant’s building is demolished, the orders regarding the terrasse and the back balcony will be moot.

[44]  Art. 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

[45]  Exhibit P-16, en liasse.