BRENDA O’FARRELL
The 1019 Report
The town of Hudson has denied The 1019 Report’s access-to-information request seeking the amount the municipality has paid in legal fees related to its interactions with a resident at the centre of a 10-year fight over a fence.
Citing a section of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and three sections of the provincial Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information, the town refused a request for the amounts it has dispersed in legal fees between 2014 and August 2024 in the decade-old fight with resident Trevor Smith, who last month was refused a minor derogation to allow the six-foot wooden fence that runs the width of his property in front of his house on Côte St. Charles to stand. According to town bylaws, a fence along the front of a property cannot be more than four feet in height.
In a three-page letter sent to The 1019 Report last week, assistant town clerk Renée Huneault pointed to Section 9 of the charter of rights that claims “every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information.”
This despite the fact that every month, Hudson council approves a list of expenditures, including legal fees that are listed by specific amounts paid to a variety of legal firms with each payment broken down by file number.
The letter goes on to state, ironically: “The information contained in the list of payments approved by the council is the only information that we can disclose.”
In response, The 1019 Report filed a second request with the town last week asking for the list of payments made to legal firms for the same 10-year period, from January 2014 to Sept. 1, 2024, as presented at the monthly meetings on the “Liste de paiements,” which council approves, that includes a breakdown of the amounts for each firm identified by its file number.
The 1019 Report has also filed a request to have the town’s denial of its original request reviewed by the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec.
The town also denied the newspaper’s request to know how many fines Smith has been issued between 2014, when the fence was installed, and August 2024, and how much these fines totalled.
The battle over the fence dates back to 2014, when Smith install a six-foot-high wooden privacy fence across the front of his property after claiming snow-clearing operations and the excessive use of salt on the roads in winter damaged the 18-foot cedar hedge that acted as a visual barrier between his house and the street.
The situation has resulted in municipal fines issued to Smith, who, in turn, filed a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court, which he lost and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the original judgment. Now, the battle appears poised to continue if not escalate, as the homeowner last week filed a complaint with the Commission Municipal du Québec and claims to be preparing to seek leave to have his case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in the wake of being denied a minor derogation that would allow his fence to stay in place.
In the meantime, the town is weighing its option to proceed with a court-backed mandate to remove the fence.
Smith had previously filed two other complaints over the fence – one with the MRC Vaudreuil-Soulanges claiming discrimination and denial of his rights, and another separate complaint with the CMQ.