Ag Pro Grain Management Services Ltd. et al. v. Lacombe (County) et al., 2006 ABQB 351

• Judge: Clark, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 23, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 351;(2006), 402 A.R. 199 (QB)

Ag Pro Grain Mgt. Services v. Lacombe (2006), 402 A.R. 199 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MY.123

Ag Pro Grain Management Services Ltd., Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd. and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Represented by Deloitte & Touche LLP (applicants) v. Lacombe County, Vulcan County, Kneehill County, Mountain View County, Flagstaff County and the Municipal District of Rocky View No. 44 and the Municipal Government Board (respondents)

(0501 08927; 2006 ABQB 351)

Indexed As: Ag Pro Grain Management Services Ltd. et al. v. Lacombe (County) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Clark, J.

May 23, 2006.

Summary:

The applicants sought judicial review of six decisions of the Municipal Government Board (MGB) respecting the assessment of six grain elevator terminals for the 2003 tax year and costs arising from the hearing. The applicants alleged that the hearing procedure was unfair and that, in raising the assessments, the MGB exceeded its statutory jurisdiction

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 632

The hearing and decision - Evidence and proof - Recording of evidence - The applicants sought judicial review of six decisions of the Municipal Government Board (MGB) respecting the assessment of six grain elevator terminals - The applicants alleged that the hearing procedure was unfair and that, in raising the assessments, the MGB exceeded its statutory jurisdiction - There was no transcript or audio recording of the evidence taken at the hearing - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Reviewing the substance and procedure of a ten-day hearing, where there are significant issues of fact, is extremely difficult in the absence of either a transcript or audio recording. I appreciate that the MGB is not a court of law. Like many other administrative tribunals, it is not required by statute to record its proceedings. In my view, however, where the decisions of a tribunal can have significant financial consequences, its proceedings should, at a minimum, be recorded. This consolidated appeal to the MGB was obviously one such case." - See paragraph 3.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7110 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7110

Assessment appeals - Provincially appointed tribunal or board - Jurisdiction - Respecting assessment errors - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Municipal Government Act gave the Municipal Government Board jurisdiction to raise an assessment on an appeal - However, that jurisdiction could only be exercised in a manner that met high standards for procedural fairness (proper notice and a full opportunity to argue the issues before the Board) - In the present case, it did not become apparent to the applicants that their assessments might be raised until close to the end of the proceedings - The Board could have provided the applicants with a full opportunity to lead further evidence and make oral argument when it became clear that this changed the nature of the proceedings and the possible outcome significantly - Any inconvenience caused to the parties and the Board could have been remedied by a costs award - Instead, the Board took the de minimus step of requesting written argument regarding its jurisdiction to raise an assessment on appeal, thereby depriving the applicants of the degree of procedural fairness that was required in the circumstances - See paragraphs 25 to 39.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7156

Assessment appeals - Applications or appeals to the courts - Right of appeal - Extent of - The applicants sought judicial review of six decisions of the Municipal Government Board (MGB) respecting the assessment of six grain elevator terminals - The applicants alleged that the hearing procedure was unfair and that, in raising the assessments, the MGB exceeded its statutory jurisdiction - The issue on review turned on the interpretation of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), specifically the interpretation of the word "change" in s. 467(1)(b) and in the context of the Board's role as an appellate tribunal - The MGA contained a weak privative clause - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review of the Board's decision was reasonableness - See paragraphs 13 to 24.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7161

Assessment appeals - Applications or appeals to the courts - Appeal on a question of law - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7156 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7208

Assessment appeals - Practice - Procedure - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7110 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7218

Assessment appeals - Practice - Costs - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7110 ].

Words and Phrases

Change - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of the word change as found in s. 467(1)(b) of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 -  See paragraphs 25 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Stirrat Laboratories Ltd. v. Health Sciences Association of Alberta, [1996] A.J. No. 1355 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 13].

Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2005), 371 A.R. 318; 354 W.A.C. 318; 2005 ABCA 276, refd to. [para. 13].

University of Alberta v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 378; 343 W.A.C. 378; 2005 ABCA 147, refd to. [para. 16].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 v. Calgary Health Authority (Foothills Medical Centre) (2004), 339 A.R. 265; 312 W.A.C. 265; 2004 ABCA 7, refd to. [para. 17].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Calgary (City) v. Northland Properties Ltd. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 443; 2003 ABQB 668, refd to. [para. 18].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 353 A.R. 332; 2004 ABQB 85, refd to. [para. 20].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 488; 2004 ABQB 510, refd to. [para. 21].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 24].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 35].

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2005), 388 A.R. 284; 2005 ABQB 866, refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 467(1)(b) [para. 26].

Counsel:

Gilbert J. Ludwig, for the applicants;

Carol Zukiwski, for the respondents, Lacombe County, Vulcan County, Kneehill County, Mountain View County, Flagstaff County and the Municipal District of Rocky View No. 44;

Mark Talaga, for the respondent, Municipal Government Board.

This application was heard on February 23, 2006, by Clark, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on May 23, 2006.