The monastery of the Moniales de Berthierville cannot be demolished to make way for a “high-end” real estate development project, despite the contrary claims of a real estate developer, Mr. André St-Martin. Nor can it be subject to “demolition by abandonment” of the place to the rigors of time. The owner of this heritage building, indicates the court, also has the duty to take measures “to ensure its preservation” and must, consequently, reimburse the State which had to intervene in its place to save this monastery of public interest. . This is essentially what an important judgment rendered on April 26 before the Superior Court in Joliette indicates.
This judgment affirms that, contrary to the claims of the real estate developer, the State does not have to buy back this property from him because it has been classified under the Cultural Heritage Act (LPC). The developer actually has to repay the state more than $903,440, plus interest. This is the cost paid to secure the building against its will. Added to this are heating and maintenance costs for another sum of $29,615.
The judge also underlines that this case “is the unfortunate illustration that a lack of consultation in the protection of cultural heritage can lead to unfortunate consequences”. In this file, the MRC of D’Autray and the Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) were obviously not on the same wavelength.
This judgment is important because it clarifies the scope of the CPA in a major case. He assures that the fact of “classifying a heritage site does not require that its meaning or that its assignment be fixed at a given time”. It also confirms that the CPA takes precedence over municipal decisions.
The owner maintained that he had already obtained a demolition permit from the municipality of Berthierville. According to him, it was an acquired right. He also refused to take care of the maintenance of the building, despite advice from the MCC. The state had found itself forced to deal with it.
Imprudence
Judge David E. Roberge indicates that the owner of this heritage property was reckless to think that demolishing a monastery was a “trivial thing”. He also notes that he received legal notices asking him to seal the building and protect its openings. No work had been done by the owner to secure the premises.
The building escaped a fire on May 23, 2022. An officer of the Sûreté du Québec had explained to the Duty that it was a criminal act. The police services had also reported several other incidents related to this building left to itself.
Against demolition by abandonment
Before the court, the company in question is held liable for the conservation costs incurred for the preservation of the site.
In 2022, recalled The duty, the Quebec State had to intervene urgently on several occasions to curb the accelerated degradation of the monastery of the Nuns. The building, according to the official reports cited in the judgment, had been left to itself by its owner since its acquisition. This caused an MCC expert to say that it was an attempt at “demolition by abandonment”.
The Superior Court agreed with the MCC on all counts in its desire to see to the protection of the former monastery.
In the eyes of the court, the protection of the place does not call into question its requalification for other uses, as the owner argued to justify his inaction. The MCC has also informed the owner that he could financially support a conversion project of the premises, if he respects the characteristics to be preserved. The owner could obtain, in the form of subsidies, up to 50% of the value of the restorations undertaken. However, the court observes that the owner made no such request and that he stuck to his desire to demolish, according to his original plans.
A significant building
The heart of the building which is in dispute dates from the economic crisis of the interwar period. It was built according to the plans of architect Joseph-Albert LaRue, starting in 1933. A professor of architecture, LaRue was one of the founders of the École des beaux-arts de Montréal. The historical, architectural and landscape values, as well as the qualities of authenticity of the whole are noted by the court. Overall, the monastery appears to several experts as an eloquent witness to a rare religious complex located in a non-urban environment.
In 2019, director Louise Sigouin made a documentary dedicated to the Moniales de Berthierville, the only French-speaking community of Dominican nuns in North America. In this film called lovers, the building still appeared in all its glory. Four years later, at the same location, an eternity seems to have passed.
The numbered company, administered by André St-Martin and Jean-Claude Paillé, argued in court for its right to demolish the former monastery of the Dominican nuns. According to the judgment of the court, André St-Martin had taken steps in 2017 to change the cadastral plan of the municipality so that he would be allowed to build apartments. For lack of another buyer, the nuns finally sold the former monastery on March 29, 2019 for the sum of $250,000. The demolition work should then begin without delay.
However, an expert report had previously recommended that the municipality take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of the building. The place is also listed for its “exceptional” heritage interest by the MRC of D’Autray, notes Judge David E. Roberge.
The municipality had nevertheless granted a demolition permit to the purchaser. However, it had not informed the MCC of its intention to authorize the destruction of a religious building of heritage importance on its territory. The case had attracted media attention, as evidenced by several articles in the Duty.
Necessary constraints
A notice of intent to classify had put an end to the desire for destruction. The minister then in office, Nathalie Roy, had signed two classification notices on December 19, 2019, in order to protect the premises.
The company that owns the premises immediately launched a challenge to the MCC’s approach rather than adapting its development projects by integrating it into an existing building.
The court recalls that “the laudable objectives of the Cultural Heritage Act can lead to constraints”