Commentary On The Decision In Jean C. Municipalité De Saint-Stanislas-de-Kostka: Superior Court Condemns Municipal Bad Faith And Upholds Landowners’ Legitimate Expectations

In a decision rendered on February 23, 2026, the Honourable Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court of Québec (the "Court") ruled in Jean c. Municipalité de Saint‑Stanislas‑de‑Kostka¹ (the "Decision") on certain municipal obligations relating to urban planning and zoning. The Court found that the municipal council acted in bad faith in adopting a by-law intended to block a construction project, and also condemned municipal agents for breaching their duties to inform and to act diligently. The Court held that the contested by-law was unenforceable against the plaintiff, thereby allowing the project to proceed, and reaffirmed the principles of procedural fairness and promissory estoppel.

The Decision

Background

In 2019, Ms. Isabelle Jean (the "Plaintiff") and her spouse identified a lot in a residential zone of the Municipality of Saint-Stanislas-de-Kostka (the "Municipality") for the purpose of subdividing it to construct two three-unit townhouses. Prior to acquiring the land, the Plaintiff sought an amendment to the zoning by-law to allow three-family dwellings in this zone, which at the time permitted only single-family dwellings and detached buildings. Supported by an architect's sketches, the project was well received and, in November 2019, the Municipality adopted By-law 371-2019 amending the applicable zoning by-law.

However, this by-law contained a drafting error that restricted three-family dwellings to detached buildings, thereby excluding the proposed townhouses. Although municipal agents were aware of this inconsistency as early as 2020, they did not bring it to the Plaintiff's attention and continued to provide assurances as to the feasibility of the project.

In February 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complete application for a building permit. Although the processing deadline set out in the municipal regulations had expired, no decision was issued. Meanwhile, the Municipality oversaw utility connection work involving expenditures of over $100,000, which, combined with repeated assurances from municipal agents, reinforced the Plaintiff's legitimate expectations.

In November 2020, an inspector informed the Plaintiff that the project would be non-compliant due to the definition of three-family dwellings and the alleged presence of a watercourse, which led the Plaintiff to request a minor variance unnecessarily. In 2021, following objections from neighbours, the Municipality once again invoked its regulatory definition and concluded that the project was non-compliant. Rather than correcting the initial error, the municipal council, at a special meeting held in May 2021, adopted By-law 412‑2021 prohibiting townhouses in zone H‑19, thereby terminating the project.

The Plaintiff then brought an action to challenge the validity of By-law 412-2021 and to seek recognition of her right to a permit, alleging that the municipal council acted in bad faith and failed to comply with procedural obligations.

Analysis

The Court had to determine whether the Municipality acted negligently in handling the file and whether the permit application was compliant and complete. It concluded that the Municipality's conduct constituted a breach of its obligations.

First, applying the principles set out in Mackin,²the Court found negligence in the drafting and adoption of By-law 371-2019, which excluded townhouses contrary to the municipal council's original intent. This error should have been detected and promptly corrected. Instead, the Municipality failed to inform the Plaintiff, while repeatedly assuring her of the project's feasibility.³

In its decision, the Court also found a breach of the duty to inform, underscoring that the Plaintiff was not expected to understand regulatory complexities and that it was incumbent on municipal agents to provide her with complete and reliable information.⁴ The Municipality's silence, combined with its oversight of costly work, the imposition of an unjustified minor variance, and its repeated assurances, improperly reinforced legitimate expectations and amounted to negligent handling of the matter.

Next, the Court criticized the hasty adoption of By-law 412-2021, passed with minimal notice and without adequate consultation, concluding that it was intended to block the project in response to public pressure rather than serve a legitimate public-interest purpose, thereby constituting bad faith.⁵ It noted that the adoption of a municipal by-law may be subject to the requirements of procedural fairness when it infringes upon a citizen's rights, and found those requirements were not respected in this case.

Finally, applying the criteria set out in Boyd Builders,⁶ the Court concluded that, in the absence of any prior intention to amend the zoning and given the bad faith surrounding the adoption of By-law 412-2021, the conditions for defeating the right to the permit were not met.⁷ Accordingly, the Plaintiff's rights had vested.

The Court's Ruling

The Court declared By‑law 412‑2021 unenforceable against the Plaintiff and authorized her to proceed with the project under By‑law 371‑2019 as then in effect. The Court, acknowledging that there were errors giving rise to the Municipality's civil liability, ordered the Municipality to issue the subdivision permit and review the revised plans.

Authors' Comments

This decision clearly shows that municipalities cannot adopt by-laws hastily or in an abusive manner to undermine landowners' rights. It underscores that, in cases of negligence, bad faith or abuse of power, a municipality may incur liability arising from the adoption of a regulatory text.

The Decision also emphasizes the central role of procedural fairness and clarifies the legal scope of legitimate expectations arising from representations made by municipal agents. While a municipality may benefit from a certain margin of error, that margin disappears when it acts in clear violation of the principles of good faith and fairness, thereby exposing it to significant legal consequences.

As the appeal period has not yet expired, it will be interesting to follow this case and see how it shapes municipal case law in Québec.

Footnotes

1. 2026 QCCS 522 (in French only)

2. Mackin v New Brunswick (Minister of Finance); Rice v New Brunswick, 2002 SCC 13, at para 82.

3. Supra note 1, at paras 116-130

4. Supra note 1, at paras 140-144.

5. Supra note 1, at paras 182-189.

6. City of Ottawa et al v Boyd Builders Ltd., 1965. SCR 408.

7. Supra note 1, at paras 153-156.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.