Winnipeg City Assessor et al. v. University of Winnipeg et al., (1996) 117 Man.R.(2d) 161 (QB)

• Judge: Hirschfield, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: November 25, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1996), 117 Man.R.(2d) 161 (QB)

Assessor v. Winnipeg Univ. (1996), 117 Man.R.(2d) 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

The Assessor for the City of Winnipeg and The City of Winnipeg (applicants) v. The University of Winnipeg, Pratt McGarry Inc. carrying on business as Colliers Pratt McGarry and The Board of Revision of the City of Winnipeg (respondents)

The Assessor for the City of Winnipeg and The City of Winnipeg (applicants) v. The University of Manitoba, Her Majesty the Queen in right of The Province of Manitoba, St. Andrew's College in Winnipeg, Pratt McGarry Inc. carrying on business as Colliers Pratt McGarry, and the Board of Revision of the City of Winnipeg (respondents)

The Assessor for the City of Winnipeg and The City of Winnipeg (applicants) v. Briman Management Ltd., The Board of Revision of the City of Winnipeg and the Municipal Board of Manitoba (respondents)

(File Nos. CI 96-01-97541, CI 96-01-97542 and CI 96-01-98640)

Indexed As: Winnipeg City Assessor et al. v. University of Winnipeg et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Hirschfield, J.

November 25, 1996.

Summary:

Section 9(2) of the Municipal Assessment Act stated that a general assessment shall be made in 1994 and in every third year there­after. Section 9(2.1) stated that the assess­ment applied to the year in which it was made (1994) and to the two following years (1995-96). Under s. 13(1), the assessor could amend the assessment roll during the three year period if there was a change to the property, etc. The assessment roll was to be published each year. Pursuant to s. 41(3) of the Act, the public notice of the assess­ments was to state that any person who thought the assessment should be revised could make an application to the Board of Revision in accordance with s. 42. Section 42(1) permitted a property owner to appeal the assessment to the Board of Revision. Following the 1994 general assessment, a number of property owners appealed their assessments in either 1994 or 1995 to the Board of Revision and had their assessments lowered. In 1996, the property owners appealed again. However, there had been no changes to the properties which would allow an amendment of the assessment pursuant to s. 13(1). The Assessor for the City of Winnipeg submitted that a property owner was entitled to only one revision of assess­ment during the three year assessment period. The Assessor applied for, inter alia, a declaration to that effect.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The court held that a property owner was entitled to an annual appeal.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7008

Assessment appeals - General principles - When available - A general assessment was valid for three years - The assessment roll was to be published each year - Pur­suant to s. 41(3) of the Municipal Assess­ment Act, the public notice was to state that any person could make an application for a revision of the assessment to the Board of Revision in accordance with s. 42 - A number of property owners success­fully applied to the Board for revision during the first or second year of the as­sessment period - The owners applied again in the third year of the assessment period - The City of Winnipeg submitted that the owners were entitled to only one revision during the three year assessment period - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that a property owner could apply for a revision each year.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Loscerbo (A.) (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 263; 61 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al., [1983] S.C.R. 493; 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 31].

Labatt Brewing Co. v. Winnipeg City Tax Collector et al. (1994), 96 Man.R.(2d) 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Premark Canada Inc. v. Provincial Munic­ipal Assessor (Man.) (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 196; 70 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Skeena Cellulose Inc. v. Provincial Mu­nicipal Assessor (Man.) et al. (1994), 97 Man.R.(2d) 76; 79 W.A.C. 76 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Doering v. Grandview (Town), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299, refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 544, refd to. [Schedule A].

Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. v. Com­munities Economic Development Fund, [1985] 1 W.W.R. 36; 28 Man.R.(2d) 219 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Empire Realty Co. v. Assessment Com­missioner of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1968), 69 D.L.R.(2d) 387 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Quintette Coal Ltd. v. Assessment Appeal Board (B.C.) (1986), 21 B.C.L.R.(2d) 193 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. I-80; C.C.S.M., c. I-80, sect. 12 [para. 29].

Municipal Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. M-225; C.C.S.M., c. M-225, sect. 798, sect. 799(1), sect. 799(2.1), sect. 799(4) [para. 22].

Municipal Assessment Act, S.M. 1989-90, c. 24; C.C.S.M., c. M-226, sect. 1(1), sect. 9(1), sect. 9(2), sect. 9(2.1), sect. 9(2.2), sect. 9(3), sect. 9(6), sect. 13(1), sect. 13(2), sect. 13(5), sect. 14(2), sect. 17(1), sect. 35(1), sect. 35(2), sect. 35(3), sect. 41(1), sect. 41(3)(d), sect. 42(1), sect. 43(1) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), generally [Schedule A].

Spencer-Bower, G., and Turner, A.K., The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed. 1969), generally [Schedule A].

Counsel:

Denise A.M. Pambrun and K.J. Durkin, for the applicants;

R.A.L. Nugent, Q.C., for the respondents, The University of Winnipeg, The Uni­versity of Manitoba and St. Andrew's College;

John D. Stefaniuk, for the respondent, Pratt McGarry Inc., carrying on business as Colliers Pratt McGarry;

Michael Mercury, Q.C., for the respondent, Briman Management Ltd.

This application was heard before Hirsch­field, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on November 25, 1996.