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

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