The Legault government is in the process of passing a bill that restricts the property rights of Quebecers, criticizes the Fasken law firm in a bulletin. Another lawyer maintains that the sponsor of the bill, Geneviève Guilbault, is in a conflict of interest.
“A reform inspired by communism? », asked Me Nikolas Blanchette, senior associate at Fasken on LinkedIn last week. Team leader in real estate disputes, he mainly represents expropriated persons.
The publication of which he is one of the authors, entitled The reform of expropriation law in Quebec by Bill 22: drift from property rights and downgrading of Quebec across North Americadestroys the CAQ government’s bill in flames.
For the government, Bill 22 aims to modernize the Expropriation law by strictly defining the compensation to be paid to the expropriated party. The bill seeks to match compensation to the market value of the expropriated property instead of the current concept of value to the owner which leads to abuse, according to the government. The bill responds to a request from cities who want to lower their expropriation costs. For example, the Montreal Metropolitan Community aims to achieve the objective of 30% protected natural environments in Greater Montreal in 2030.
In Bill 22, we say that we want to find a market value. This is not true, according to my reading of the bill. We can go well below the market value, which for me becomes impoverishment.
Me Nikolas Blanchette, senior partner at Fasken
“The only states where property is taken without paying the market value are rather communist states. If we impoverish someone, it’s dispossession,” he says in an interview with The Press.
The lawyer points out that the expropriated person is not a normal seller. He is forced to part with his property at a time which he has not chosen and which may be disadvantageous to him.
Articles 75, 101, 102, 115 of the project will possibly lead to an impoverishment of the expropriated person, gives the Fasken lawyer as an example. “No other Canadian province goes this far,” he maintains.
Articles 75 and 115 relate to the compensation to be paid to the expropriated party, while articles 101 and 102 prevent any possibility of claiming damages as a result of the expropriation work.
A minister in conflict of interest
The progress of the detailed study of the project which began on Wednesday October 18 does not bode well for the rights of expropriated persons, if we rely on the words of jurist Sylvain Bélair at De Grandpré Chait, a lawyer specializing in expropriation who participated in the drafting of the brief of the Barreau du Québec. He also represents expropriated people in his practice.
“I am stunned by the turn this bill is taking, which is an unprecedented attack on property rights,” he said in a telephone interview. This is a step backwards from the rules that exist. »
The respected lawyer goes so far as to assert on LinkedIn that Minister Guilbault is in a conflict of interest.
“This project would have had to be sponsored by the Minister of Justice,” he explains on the telephone. From the moment the largest expropriating body comes to say: “this is how the court will set the compensation”, it is not correct for one of the two parties [d’un litige] establishes compensation rules. »
Mr. Bélair also denounces that Bill 22 was prepared by representatives of Transport and municipal groups, without the presence of representatives of private owners.
“I understand that people will have to give up their property for the common good, but not without compensation,” said Liberal MP for Acadia, André Morin, over the phone. The people who will be expropriated must not become poorer or richer either. I’m just trying to find a balance in this bill. »
It was impossible to obtain comments from Minister Guilbault’s office before nightfall.
The study of Bill 22 continues this Tuesday.
Four provisions that weaken the powers of expropriated citizens
- A city or any other expropriating body must authorize in advance the professional fees and expertise costs which will be incurred by the expropriated party and which the latter intends to claim as compensation to be received in cases where the compensation exceeds 750,000 $. – Section 74
- An expropriating body no longer has to compensate for damage caused by construction work during an expropriation. – Articles 101 and 102
- The professional fees of the expropriated party’s lawyers do not constitute damage caused directly by the expropriation and do not give rise to reimbursement, unless the expropriating party acted in bad faith. – Article 102
- A City that has carried out disguised expropriation (by changing the zoning to lower the market value of the property, for example) may choose not to pay the owner the compensation decided by the Court. It may simply modify a posteriori the zoning regulations covered by the Court’s decision. – Articles 170 and 171