Case information

Civil procedure — Stay — Application for provisional suspension of application of certain sections of law by companies contesting its validity for breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of their property guaranteed by Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C 12 — Provisional suspension granted by Quebec Superior Court — Application for leave to appeal allowed — Quebec Court of Appeal dismissing joint motion to review and quash judgment allowing application for leave to appeal — Court of Appeal allowing appeal and dismissing applications for stay — Whether Court of Appeal’s break with precedent is consistent with principles that there can be no appeal without legislation — At balance of convenience step in context of application for suspension of provisions of law, whether courts can consider absence of actual harm to public interest — How courts can limit scope of stay — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. 25.01, art. 31 — Act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine, CQLR, c. R 1.01.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants are companies that engage in activities in the field of petroleum exploration and production. In court cases against the respondents that were joined to be heard together, the applicants called into question the operability and validity of the Act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine (“AEE”), alleging that it breached their right to peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of their property guaranteed by s. 6 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms. The Superior Court allowed in part the applicants’ application for a stay and suspended the application of several sections of the AEE during the proceeding. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ application for leave to appeal. The applicants brought a joint motion to review and quash the judgment allowing that application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that it did not have authority to review the manner in which a judge interpreted and applied the criteria of art. 31 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a specific case. It then allowed the respondents’ appeal, finding that the Superior Court had erred in law on the balance of convenience test. Given the importance of the public interest and the failure to demonstrate public interest benefits that would flow from the suspension of part of the AEE, it set aside the trial judgment and dismissed the stay applications brought by the applicants.