1392290 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Ajax (Town), 2010 ONCA 37

• Judge: Goudge, LaForme and Rouleau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 14, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2010 ONCA 37;(2010), 257 O.A.C. 311 (CA)

1392290 Ont. v. Ajax (2010), 257 O.A.C. 311 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.034

1392290 Ontario Ltd. and Riocan Holdings Ltd. (appellants) v. Corporation of the Town of Ajax (respondent)

(C50012; 2010 ONCA 37)

Indexed As: 1392290 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Ajax (Town)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Goudge, LaForme and Rouleau, JJ.A.

January 22, 2010.

Summary:

The appellants' property was part of a larger parcel subdivided in 2000. The smaller parcel was conveyed to Home Depot. Prior to the severance the single parcel was assessed under one taxation roll number. After the severance, the Assessment Roll prepared in late 2000 reflected the two individual parcels. The appellants' property continued to be enrolled under the same taxation roll number with a changed description, lot size, and value assessment. The parcel conveyed to Home Depot was given a new roll number. These changes to the Assessment Roll in late 2000 were prepared for the 2001 taxation year. As a result of the severance that occurred in 2000, the Town of Ajax and assessors concluded that the severed lands fell within the definition of "eligible property" under s. 447.70 of the Municipal Act. The appellants disagreed, and applied to the Superior Court for a determination of the issue.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application. The parcel fell within the definition of "eligible property". The appellants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at 242 O.A.C. 131, dismissed the appeal. The appellants appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Real Property Tax - Topic 2583

The assessment role - Preparing the role - Time for - The appellants' property was part of a larger parcel subdivided in 2000 - The smaller parcel was conveyed to Home Depot - Prior to the severance the single parcel was assessed under one taxation roll number - After the severance, the Assessment Roll prepared in late 2000 reflected the two individual parcels - The appellants' property continued to be enrolled under the same taxation roll number with a changed description, lot size, and value assessment - The parcel conveyed to Home Depot was given a new roll number - These changes to the Assessment Roll in late 2000 were prepared for the 2001 taxation year - As a result of the severance that occurred in 2000, the Town of Ajax and assessors concluded that the severed lands fell within the definition of "eligible property" under s. 447.70 of the Municipal Act - The appellants disagreed, asserting that the absence of an express temporal application in s. 447.70(21)(c) meant that the section applied only to lands that were subdivided or severed after the effective date of January 1, 2001 (where the new scheme only came into effect in 2000) - The Divisional Court rejected the assertion - The appellants appealed, arguing that (1) the scheme of the Municipal Act supported an immediate, rather than retrospective, application; (2) the absence of regulations dealing with properties severed before January 1, 2001, when considered in light of the regulations that addressed properties severed after that date, demonstrated that the legislature did not intend the amendments to apply retrospectively; and (3) they had vested rights and were thus entitled to a presumption that s. 447.70(21)(c) was not intended to have a retrospective effect - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The definition of "eligible property" in s. 447.70(21)(c) operated retrospectively and did not interfere with vested rights.

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights (incl. pending litigation) - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 2583 ].

Statutes - Topic 6703

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - What constitutes retrospective or retroactive operation - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 2583 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 1].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 1].

Curtis Properties (Bridgeland) Inc. et al. v. Toronto (City) et al., [2006] O.T.C. 913; 27 M.P.L.R.(4th) 140 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Dikranian v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 530; 342 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 30].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc. v. Collin, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 257; 326 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 34].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 36].

Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp. et al. (2007), 229 O.A.C. 112; 39 M.P.L.R.(4th) 6 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Puskas (J.F.); R. v. Chatwell (D.R.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1207; 227 N.R. 1; 110 O.A.C. 374, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-45, sect. 447.70(21) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), generally [para. 9].

Driedger, Elmer A., Statutes: Retroactive Retrospective Reflections (1978), 56 Can. Bar Rev. 264, pp. 268, 269 [para. 32].

Hansard (Ont.) - see Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates.

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates, No. 104B (November 20, 2000), p. 5594 [paras. 14, 24, footnotes 3, 4].

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates, No. 105B (November 21, 2000), p. 5655 [para. 13, footnote 2].

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates, No. 106B (November 22, 2000), p. 5720 [para. 13, footnote 2].

Sullivan, Ruth, Essentials of Canadian Law - Statutory Interpretation (2nd Ed. 2007), pp. 50, 51 [para. 10].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 714 [para. 39]; 717 [paras. 39, 40].

Counsel:

Phillip Sanford and Sarah Chesworth, for the appellants;

Peter Milligan and Adam Stephens, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2009, by Goudge, LaForme and Rouleau, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by LaForme, J.A., on January 22, 2010.