The City of Pointe-Claire is suing two of its homeowners. The case revolves around a backyard shed. The city only permits one such structure per residential lot. The owners of the house on Prince Edward Ave. have two.
The city has opted to go to court after unsuccessfully trying for two years to come to some agreement with the owners.
OK, having an extra backyard shed is not perhaps a big crime. But it does contravene the city’s zoning and nuisance bylaws. And when negotiation fails, what is left?
The case sparks a new round in a recurring debate: Should a municipality be allowed to sue one of its taxpayers?
The answer to that is clear, in my opinion. Yes, a city should be able to avail itself of the courts to ensure its rules and regulations are upheld. That doesn’t mean it always should, though. There is room for abuse. The financial playing field is skewed in the municipality’s favour. Personality conflicts, grudge matches and power trips can quickly get out of hand, forcing both sides to spend a lot of money over a very petty issue. There needs to be accountability.
Perhaps there needs to some sort of mechanism for towns to adhere to before hiring the services of a legal firm?
Who should have a say when it comes to spending tax money in the courts?
What is your opinion?
Brenda O’Farrell
What a stupid question !
Of course the town must take what ever action is required to sort out belligerent home owners.
Many home owners do not abide by the rules and do what ever they want – they build sheds without consulting the bye laws or applying for a building permit – and when the town takes them to task,, they simply ignore the municipality. As for the legal cost, the town should put the tab on the home owner. I could tell you of many who do as they wish.
Hi Brenda,
As someone who has experienced the ‘Pointe-Claire inspectionoscopy’, let me just say that my first sympathies are with the homeowners. When last I checked, we pointe-clairians are allowed both a shed and a greenhouse, and in my humble opinion they should just put in a skylight and call the second structure a greenhouse.
These things do not happen without the so called anonymous complaint, which makes this whole thing suspect in my view. The city’s bylaws are overly broad and vague, and their enforcement in my experience was bizarre and lacking in technical competence, which I demonstrated successfully to the judge in my own case.
The city of pointe-claire and other municipalities should stay out of people’s back yards unless real public safety and security are threatened, or unless real nuisances are involved. How can two sheds be a huge deal when a greenhouse and a shed are OK?
The city has many other things it currently neglects, such as mandating smooth interfaces between hardscapes and turf which are in fact safety issues, Mowing concrete is dangerous for the mowers and bystanders alike.
The most basic right of any property owner is the right to be left in peace to enjoy his or her own property unless there is a genuine reason to exercise the police power against him or her. There are charter rights here which should be defended.
Frank Teuton
Pointe-Claire resident
Wow, can’t believe the city of Pointe Claire doesn’t have better things to do than to be checking peoples backyards!!!!
Hello,
No, the City of Pointe Claire should not have the right to sue. While I do not have all the facts relevant to this case, I will provide the following comments and observations:
1. To sue one must be able to prove damages. What damage has the City of Pointe Claire sustained in this case?
2. In the province of Quebec, residents may not sue the provincial Government for damages. Whether this applies to municipalities created under the Quebec Municipality Act is not clear, but there is a connection. If a citizen/resident elector cannot sue its elected government, neither should that government be able to sue its electors.
3. The municipality in question has by-laws, which I am not in any way saying should not be enforced, but not via the lawsuit route. Surely the bylaws provide for some other form of remedy in a situation like this.
4. How much will this lawsuit whether successful or not cost Pointe Claire taxpayers?
5. This incident is taking place in a section of Pointe Claire (Valois) where it is has been my perception for many years, that infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate to a level not evident in most other Pointe Claire sectors. This relates primarily to road surface standards and conditions, and access to public transportation (both STM and ATM). It is unfortunate that Valois could not have been amalgamated with Dorval rather than Pointe Claire at the time when it had the opportunity to do so.
Cheers,
Brendan Corrigan