Agpro Grain Inc. v. Moose Jaw (City), (1997) 154 Sask.R. 78 (QB)

• Judge: Scheibel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1997), 154 Sask.R. 78 (QB)

Agpro Grain Inc. v. Moose Jaw (1997), 154 Sask.R. 78 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Judicial Review of the Assessment Appeals Committee of the Municipal Appeal Board from a Tax Assessment Decision and a Refusal to State a Question of Law for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Agpro Grain Inc. (applicant/proposed appellant) v. City of Moose Jaw (respondent/proposed respondent)

(1997 Q.B.G. No. 122)

Indexed As: Agpro Grain Inc. v. Moose Jaw (City)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Scheibel, J.

February 17, 1997.

Summary:

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Municipal Appeal Board to set down five questions, submitted by the applicant, to be determined by the Court of Appeal. The first two questions involved the interpretation and application of the Assessment Manual whereas the last questions related to "assessor error".

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - When available - [See Practice - Topic 9153 ].

Practice - Topic 9153

Appeals - Stated case - When available - The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Municipal Appeal Board to set down five questions, submitted by the applicant, to be de­ter­mined by the Court of Appeal - The first two questions involved the interpreta­tion and application of the Assessment Manual whereas the last ques­tions related to "assessor error" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The first two questions, although ques­tions of law, which could quite properly be the subject of a mandamus order, were already answered by the Court of Appeal in previous case law - The last questions were errors of fact, valuation and evidence and were therefore inappropriate for a stated case - See para­graphs 7 to 10.

Practice - Topic 9155

Appeals - Stated case - Question of law - [See Practice - Topic 9153 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7166

Assessment appeals - Appeals to the courts - Stated case - [See Practice - Topic 9153 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan Municipal Board v. First City Trust Co. et al. (1996), 144 Sask.R. 56; 124 W.A.C. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Cedar Meadows Condominium v. Regina (City) et al. (1990), 89 Sask.R. 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Alberta Giftwares Ltd. v. R., [1974] S.C.R. 584, refd to. [para. 7].

Zimmer et al. v. Edenwold No. 158 (Rural Municipality) (1994), 128 Sask.R. 129; 85 W.A.C. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Regina (City) v. Laing Property Corp., [1995] 3 W.W.R. 551; 128 Sask.R. 29; 85 W.A.C. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Board Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. M-23.2, sect. 33 [para. 9].

Counsel:

James L. Nugent, for the applicant;

Brian D. Hamblin, for the respondent, the City of Moose Jaw;

Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the Municipal Appeal Board.

This application was heard before Scheibel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on Febru­ary 17, 1997.