On April 8, 2015, Justice Johanne April dismissed a Motion for
authorization of a class action in neighborhood disturbances
concerning the construction of a wind farm near Quebec City (Parcs
éoliens de la Seigneurie de Beaupré)1.
This decision is the second one rendered in a small period of
time related to wind farm projects, in the Province of Quebec, and
is a rare decision dismissing authorization with respect to
neighborhood disturbances in this province. In fact, in a decision
rendered last October, Justice Marc St-Pierre granted a Motion for
authorization of a class action2 related to the
exploitation of a wind farm in the Centre-du-Québec
(Éoliennes de l'Érable inc.) Another Motion for
authorization of a class action has been filed in the Province of
Québec regarding the exploitation of a wind farm (Parc
éolien des Moulins Phase 1), but no decision has yet been
In Parcs éoliens de la Seigneurie de Beaupré, the
Applicants were seeking damages related to the construction of the
wind farm, alleging inconvenience related to the increased traffic,
noise and the dirt due to the transportation of workers and
equipment. It is interesting to note that no damages were
claimed in relation to the exploitation of the wind farm,
considering that the wind farm is built on a private land far away
from the houses. This is an important distinction with to
the two other class actions mentioned above, where damages are
claimed in relation to the exploitation of the wind farm (constant
noise and vibration, visual pollution, visual impairment, physical
and mental health problems and loss of property values).
In Parcs éoliens de la Seigneurie de Beaupré,
Justice April found that criterion 1003 c) of the Code of
Civil Procedure was not met and dismissed the Applicants'
Said criterion stipulates: "The composition of the group
makes the application of article 59 or 67 difficult or
impracticable." In this regard, Section 59 stipulates that
"when several persons have a common interest in a dispute, any
one of them may appear in judicial proceedings on behalf of them
all, if he holds their mandate." And Section 67 stipulates:
"Two or more persons, whose claims have the same judicial
basis or raise the same points of law and fact, may join in the
The Court considered there was no evidence regarding the number
of residents living on the roads aimed by the authorization and
that such information would have been important. Moreover,
it mentioned that the impact of the noise and dirt was obviously
different depending on which road the member's property was
located. The Court indicated that the description of the
group was too broad but decided not to use its discretion to reduce
and/or redefine the group. Finally, the group really affected was
in fact quite limited so that the residents allegedly disturbed by
the nuisances could easily be identified and, therefore,
application of Sections 59 or 67 C.c.p. was neither difficult nor
The dismissal of the Motion for authorization in Parcs
éoliens de la Seigneurie de Beaupré gives some hope
and shows that the contestation of authorization is still useful.
Nevertheless, this decision remains an exception and will be
examined by the Quebec Court of Appeal. When the decisions in Parc
éolien des Moulins Phase 1 as well as the one from the Court
of Appeal in Parcs éoliens de la Seigneurie de
Beaupré will be rendered, then we will be able to see if the
wind has turned...or if it was just a single gust of wind!
 Blouin v. Parcs éoliens de la seigneurie de
Beaupré 2 et 3, Société en nom collectif and
Parcs éoliens de la seigneurie de Beaupré 4, S.E.N.C,
2015 QCCS 1619 (Inscription in Appeal filed on May 7, 2015)
(hereinafter "Parcs éoliens de la Seigneurie de
 Rivard v. Éolienne de l'Érable
inc., 2014 QCCS 5189.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).