BRENDA O’FARRELL
The 1019 Report

Like a bell that signals the start of a new round in a long, drawn-out grudge match, Hudson town council earlier this month set the scene for what all indications point to an escalation in a decade-old fight over a fence, with the homeowner at the centre of it this week vowing to seek leave to have his case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“It’s going to the Supreme Court,” said homeowner Trevor Smith in an interview with The 1019 Report. “This is not over. It can’t be.”

Smith is digging in and vowing to continue a costly court battle against the town after Hudson council on Sept. 3 denied his request for 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.

“This has not been an easy file for us,” said Hudson Mayor Chloe Hutchison just minutes before council voted to deny Smith’s derogation request.

“It’s unfortunate Mr. Smith did not bring this request for a six-foot fence as a minor derogation request before his fence was built,” Hutchison said, referring to 2014, when the privacy barrier was installed.

“It is clear Mr. Smith was in clear knowledge of the bylaws and the requirements of the bylaws before he built the fence,” Hutchinson said after the vote. “He knowingly knew he was crossing and not respecting the bylaw.”

Before council voted on the matter, several residents and no fewer than three former Hudson councillors – members of the past two administrations who had also dealt with this issue – urged the present council to grant the derogation and end the fight that has cost the town an unknown amount in legal fees.

With the standoff between the town and the homeowner described by some who spoke at the Sept. 3 meeting as  “silly,” “non-sensical” and “a comedy of errors,” the present council was urged to end the fight and let the fence stand.

“The town does accept all kinds of derogations,” said former councillor Helen Kurgansky. “We do it every single month practically. We give derogations for valid reasons. Trevor Smith had a valid reason to have that extra two feet of fence, except that they escalated – the laws, the lawyers, discussion, arguments – until it got out of control, and here we are 10 years later.”

“This is a time to have le gros bon sens – good judgment,” Kurgansky continued. “Let’s stop wasting our money, our energies.”

Last week, in the wake of the denial of the derogation, Smith filed a complaint with the Commission municipal du Québec, a quasi-judicial body that oversees municipal matters in the province.

The complaint focuses on the resolution adopted by Hudson council on Sept. 3 that denies his derogation request to permit his six-foot fence that was based on five criteria that was considered in reaching that decision. Specifically, Smith highlights the criteria that claims: “If the minor exemption request concerns work in progress or already carried out, a building permit must have been issued and the work must have been carried out in good faith.”

Smith’s complaint to the CMQ claims that in 2014 no building permit was required by the town to build a fence, and that in reference to good faith, “no judge ever decided that I had not acted in good faith – there was only a comment that it would be difficult for me to prove good faith.”

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.