Canada: The Supreme Court Of Canada Renders A Long Awaited Ruling Regarding The Power To Situate Radiocommunication Antenna Systems

Last Updated: September 16 2016
Article by Stephanie Hamelin

The proliferation of the number of radiocommunication antennas and other radiocommunication systems in Canada in recent years in response to the growing demand of cellular radiocommunication network users has given rise to numerous conflicts opposing, on the one hand, telecommunication firms asserting the scope of federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication and, on the other hand, cities and municipalities, seeking control with respect to the development of their territories.1 On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada sealed the fate of a legal dispute opposing Rogers Communications Inc. ("Rogers") to the City of Châteauguay ("Châteauguay")2 since 2008 and, by so doing, also put an end to years of uncertainty with respect to the extent of the municipalities' powers regarding the determination of the location of radiocommunication antenna systems. On the basis of constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of Rogers and confirmed the paramountcy of federal power over radiocommunication.


Rogers is a communications and media company that holds a spectrum license. This license requires Rogers to provide services in precisely specified Canadian geographic areas. Among such areas is the City of Châteauguay, where Rogers wished to build a new radiocommunication tower in order to fill certain coverage gaps in its network. In order to comply with the terms of its license, Rogers undertook to build a radiocommunication antenna system on the property located at 411 Saint-Francis Boulevard ("411 Saint-Francis"). Such installation was agreed to by the owner of the property.

In March 2008, Rogers informed Châteauguay of its intention to materialize its construction project. Consequently, Rogers requested the authorization of the federal Minister of Industry (the "Minister") for a specific site, as provided in the Radiocommunication Act, and subsequently initiated the 120-day public consultation process, as required under the Industry Canada circular. Rogers also notified the residents and property owners living in a determined area adjacent to 411 Saint-Francis and published a notice in a local newspaper.

On April 28, 2008, Châteauguay notified Rogers of its opposition to the project. Châteauguay argued that the project would be visually disagreeable and contravened its zoning by-law, and raised questions regarding the potential adverse impact of the project on the health and safety of residents living in the area. Châteauguay then suggested three alternatives to Rogers: to install the new antenna on an existing site; to increase the power of the signal from an existing antenna already operated by Rogers; or to complete the project on a new property located at 50 Industriel Boulevard ("50 Industriel").

Later that year, Rogers advised Châteauguay that all of the proposed alternatives were inadequate. After review, Rogers argued that the existing site and antenna were inadequate and that 50 Industriel was not available for its project. Rogers also confirmed the compliance of the projected tower with the requirements established by Health Canada in Safety Code 63 with respect to limits of exposure to radiofrequency. In February 2009, Châteauguay finally issued a building permit to Rogers to complete the project at 411 Saint-Francis.

Subsequently, Châteauguay received a petition signed by several residents opposing the project, resulting in the resumption of the public consultation process. On September 21, 2009, the Minister, by virtue of its powers under the Radiocommunication Act, determined that the consultation process had been completed satisfactorily and that the project would not negatively impact the environment. The Minister nevertheless expressed its wish that Rogers and Châteauguay come to a mutually agreeable arrangement. The Minister indicated that it would give the opportunity to Châteauguay to find an alternative site to 411 Saint-Francis before rendering its final decision regarding the location of Rogers' tower. Châteauguay then again proposed the 50 Boulevard Industriel property as an alternative site for the new antenna system, as this site was also located within the designated search area. Châteauguay notified Rogers of its intention to acquire that property either by mutual agreement or by way of expropriation. Rogers agreed to consider this alternative location, on the condition that the transaction between Châteauguay and the owner of that property were to take place no later than February 15, 2010. However, a third party (Christina White) purchased 50 Industriel before Châteauguay's municipal council could adopt a resolution authorizing the expropriation. Châteauguay ultimately published a notice of expropriation for 50 Industriel on the land register. This publication, however, occured after the expiry of the deadline determined by Rogers. Ms. White then filed a petition to contest such notice of expropriation a few days later.

Concerned that the expropriation proceedings would drag on, Rogers asked the Minister to determine the location of the projected tower. On July 26, 2010, the Minister finally approved the installation of the tower at 411 Saint-Francis. By doing so, the Ministry put an end to months of public consultation and discussions between Châteauguay and Rogers.

Following the Minister's decision, Rogers informed Châteauguay that it would proceed with the construction of its tower at 411 Saint-Francis. In October of the same year, Châteauguay asked Rogers to delay the work until a decision was rendered with respect to the expropriation of 50 Industriel and, in the event of an adverse ruling, agreed to allow the construction of the tower at 411 Saint-Francis.

However, in the meantime, the City adopted a resolution authorizing the creation of a land reserve on 411 Saint-Francis, which lead to Rogers rejecting Châteauguay's offer. On October 12, 2010, Rogers was served with the notice of reserve for 411 Saint-Francis, applicable for a term of 2 years and prohibiting any new construction on the property. Rogers then filed a motion to contest the notice, alleging that such a notice was unconstitutional as it intruded on the federal power of radiocommunication. Such notice of reserve was renewed for an additional term of 2 years before its initial expiry.

Judgments of the Lower Courts

(a) Superior Court

The Superior Court annulled the notice of reserve registered by the City of Châteauguay. First, the judge concluded that Châteauguay had acted to further a valid municipal purpose and in the interest of the health and well-being of its residents by exercising its expropriation power with respect to the property at 50 Boulevard Industriel. According to the Court, such a power was not exercised to favour the interests of a private entity and was not abusive.4 Second, the Court held that the notice of reserve registered by Châteauguay did not encroach on the exclusive federal jurisdiction with respect to radiocommunication, as it did not require Rogers to use 50 Industriel. However, despite these two findings in favour of Châteauguay, the judge found that the discretion conferred on a municipality to establish a reserve was exercised in bad faith, as it was intended to prevent the construction of the tower, the whole in violation of administrative law principles. The notice of reserve was therefore annulled on administrative law grounds rather than pursuant to constitutional principles.

(b) Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal was of the view that municipalities have decisional powers with regard to the development of their territory and the preservation of the health and well-being of their citizens, notwithstanding the exclusive federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication. In addition, the Court observed that it was difficult to conclude to the bad faith of Châteauguay when it issued its reserve and expropriation notices, as it was acting to pursue legitimate goals. The Court also rejected the constitutional arguments put forward by Rogers. The Court concluded that the determination of the location of a radiocommunication tower was not an essential element of the federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that Châteauguay's notice of reserve was valid and did not infringe upon federal powers.

The Supreme Court Ruling

(a) Arguments of the Parties

Rogers argued that the sole purpose and effect of the notice of reserve was to prevent it from constructing its antenna system at 411 Saint-Francis. It also argued that the notice related, in pith and substance, to the siting of radiocommunication infrastructure. According to Rogers, the notice of reserve was therefore unconstitutional, since it fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication. According to Châteauguay, in order to ascertain the pith and substance of the notice of reserve, it was necessary to distinguish the effective impact of the notice of reserve from its intended purpose. It contended that the ultimate purpose of the reserve was to protect the health and well being of its residents living close to 411 Saint-Francis and to ensure the development of its territory. Châteauguay thus argued that since these are matters that fall within the provincial powers with respect to "Property and Civil Rights in the Province" and "Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province" granted pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, the notice of reserve was therefore intra vires and constituted a legitimate exercise of the powers delegated to it.

(b) Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was of the view that the notice of reserve is ultra vires of the powers attributed to Châteauguay, and concluded that it should be annulled. For several grounds, the Court considered that the issuance of the notice of reserve constituted an exercise of the powers over radiocommunication, which falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction. To reach such a conclusion, the Court analyzed the pith and substance of the notice of reserve by interpreting its purpose and effects. The evidence adduced showed that the notice of reserve was registered subsequent to the approval of the project by the Minister, immediately after the refusal of Châteauguay's proposal to Rogers and immediately after Rogers announced its intention to go forward with the construction of its antennas at 411 Saint-Francis. According to the Court, even by constructing these facts generously, one could only conclude that the purpose of the notice of reserve was to prevent Rogers from installing its radiocommunication antenna system at 411 Saint-Francis by limiting the possible choices for the system's location. Indeed, from a legal standpoint, it prohibited all construction on the property at 411 Saint-Francis for a period of 2 years and, from a practical standpoint, it prevented Rogers from constructing its antenna system on the property of its choice and approved by the Minister. Therefore, even though the adoption of the notice of reserve was aimed at protecting residents of Châteauguay, its practical and legal impacts were the intrusion upon federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication.

According to the Court, to hold otherwise could lead to municipalities systematically intruding on the federal power to choose where to locate radiocommunication infrastructure by invoking local interests. The Court explained, however, that the Court's decision must not be interpreted as indicating that a municipality exercises a federal power when it supports a firm such as Rogers in an antenna system installation process via the exercise of expropriating powers. In such a case, a municipality would not be choosing the location of an antenna system, and its actions would simply be related to the development of its territory, which is permitted under the division of powers. Such collaboration by a city pursues a development purpose, which falls within its jurisdiction. Conversely, the Court observed that where a municipality objects to the construction of a tower for which the location has been approved by the Minister, the municipality is then exercising the federal jurisdiction to determine the location of the infrastructure necessary to the deployment of a radiocommunication network.

The Court also firmly rejected Châteauguay's key argument based on the principle of co-operative federalism. In the words of the Court, this principle can neither override nor modify the division of powers conferred by the Constitution Act, 1867, and cannot impose limits on the exercise of exclusive legislative authority or validate an otherwise unconstitutional notice. Because of its pith and substance, which is of exclusive federal jurisdiction, the challenged measure does not present a two-fold aspect, namely a provincial aspect with respect to healthcare, and a federal aspect with respect to radiocommunication. The Court concluded that, based on the facts presented before the Court, the contrast between the materiality of the two aspects is very marked: the federal jurisdiction is much more significant. Recognizing the opposite would contradict the precedent established by the Privy Council in In re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication in Canada,5 to the effect that the federal jurisdiction over the siting of such infrastructure is exclusive. Consequently, the Court held that the notice of reserve was made ultra vires of Châteauguay's powers and competence.

(c) Doctrine of Interjurisdictional Immunity

Even though the Court found that the doctrine of pith and substance sufficed to dispose of the appeal in favour of Rogers, it nevertheless went on to apply the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity to clarify the applicable law and further substantiate its decision.

This doctrine has the effect of protecting a jurisdiction (e.g. federal) against intrusions that may be made by another legislative banch (in the present case, provincial or municipal). In practice, the Court has to assess whether a particular measure intrudes on the core of a given jurisdiction, and if so, it must determine whether the impact of such intrusion is serious or significant.

The parties submitted various arguments regarding the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. On the one hand, Rogers claimed that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity protected the exercise of activities falling within the core of a federal jurisdiction. On the other hand, Châteauguay maintained that the core of the federal jurisdiction did not include the selection of a specific location within an area determined by Rogers. Alternatively, Châteauguay alleged that the notice of reserve did not intrude the federal jurisdiction in a sufficiently serious and significant matter, as it only had the effect of delaying the construction of the radio tower.

The Court found that it had to follow the precedent established in Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada,6 which held that the location of poles and cables falls within the core of federal power over radiocommunication, and determined that the siting of antennas, like the choice of location for poles and cables, is at the core of the federal power over radiocommunication. This view was strengthened by the testimony of Rogers' manager of radio engineering,7 who explained that the designated location of a tower must be scrupulously observed, as a simple derivation of 100 or 200 meters can undermine the effectiveness of the radiocommunication network. The Court therefore concluded that the determination of the location of antenna systems is at the core of the federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication, notably since the efficient operation of the cellular network is greatly impacted by this decision. The Court is of the view that Parliament should have the power to rule on this to adequately fulfill the jurisdiction that it enjoys.

The Court added that the notice of reserve did not simply "affect" the federal power over radiocommunication; it seriously and significantly impaired it, as demonstrated by the fact that the notice of reserve prevented Rogers from constructing its antenna system for four years without an alternative solution achievable within a short time being offered to Rogers. As a result of the notice and in light of Châteauguay's offer, Rogers had no other choice but to wait until the end of the expropriation proceedings relating to 50 Industriel, or wait for the expiry of a period of about seven months. Since this situation prevented Rogers from fulfilling its obligations under its spectrum license, the notice of reserve "compromised the orderly development and efficient operation of radiocommunication and impaired the core of the federal power over radiocommunication in Canada."8 For these reasons, the Court concluded that the notice of reserve published by Châteauguay constituted a serious and significant intrusion to the core of the federal power over radiocommunication and was therefore inapplicable to Rogers.

(d) Dissenting opinion

Justice Gason agreed with his colleagues on the outcome of the appeal, but not with their reasons. According to Gascon J., the notice of reserve was intra vires, since the circumstances surrounding its adoption revealed an intended purpose of protecting the health and safety of citizens and not an express opposition to the construction of the tower. Despite its practical effect of preventing the construction of radiocommunication antennas, Gagnon J. concluded that the legal effect of the notice of reserve was the exercise by the City of its jurisdiction with respect to the development of its territory via its expropriation powers. Moreover, he observed that the measure in issue also pursued the main goal of harmoniously developing municipal territory. Therefore, he was of the view that Châteauguay's notice of reserve fell within the municipality's jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867.

According to Gascon J., this flexible approach of the pith and substance doctrine promotes subsidiarity and co-operative federalism. That said, this approach is insufficient to side with Châteauguay's position since under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the notice of reserve intrudes significantly upon the core of federal jurisdiction over radiocommunication by preventing the use of the site determined by the Minister under the Radiocommunication Act and the circular. Therefore, Gascon J. sided with the majority of the Court as to the outcome of the appeal.


Based on partially different grounds, the majority and the dissent of the Supreme Court of Canada set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment, therefore annulling the notice of reserve and allowing Rogers to install its radiocommunication antennas at 411 Saint-Francis. In so doing, the Court explicitly confirmed that the ultimate choice of the location of radiocommunication infrastructure is at the core of the federal power over radiocommunication. While the municipalities may raise their concerns and preferences during the course of the consultation process, they cannot block this process, as this would threaten the orderly and efficient development of radiocommunication in Canada. Therefore, once the consultation process requirements have been fulfilled and the Minister's approval has been obtained, the municipalities' concerns, whether relating to aesthetic, sanitary, safety or other concerns, cannot prevent a communication company from choosing the location for the installation of its radiocommunication tower.


1. See for example: Situation in St-Austin, see, published on December 21, 2015; Situation in Chambly, see, published on May 9, 2016.

2. Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City), 2016 SCC 23.

3. See Safety Code 6: Health Canada's Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines, online:

4. Argument based on 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40.

5. [1932] A.C. 304.

6. [1905] A.C. 52.

7. And other sources, see: Telus Communications Co. v. Toronto (City) (2007), 84 O.R. (3d) 656 (C.S.J.), at para 30; "Telecommunications and the Constitution: Re-Setting the Bounds of Federal Authority" (2010), 89 R. Can. 695, at p 726.

8. Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City), supra, note 2, at para 71.

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2016

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.