Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton,

• Judge: Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 ABCA 176
• Date: 15 May 2008
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (2008), 437 A.R. 199 (CA);

      433 W.A.C. 199

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. AU.002

Boardwalk Reit LLP (appellant) v. The City of Edmonton and the Municipal Government Board (respondents)

(0603-0277-AC; 2008 ABCA 176)

Indexed As: Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A.

May 15, 2008.

Summary:

Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed from the 2004 assessments for its 90 multi-residential properties in the City of Edmonton. The Municipal Government Board affirmed a decision of the Assessment Review Board to dismiss Boardwalk's appeals summarily because it had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor. Boardwalk applied for judicial review of the Municipal Government Board's decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 411 A.R. 38, dismissed the application. Boardwalk appealed. Oral argument was heard before a panel of the Court of Appeal consisting of Côté and O'Brien JJ.A., and a third judge. The panel reserved judgment. The assessor suggested that an unrelated appeal by the third judge against that judge's Calgary house taxes would create an appearance of bias. The assessor moved to disqualify all three members of the panel, suggesting that the third judge had a conflict of interest, and that judge's presence had tainted the rest of the panel. The third judge voluntarily decided to take no further part in the proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A., dismissed the motion for disqualification. The third judge was not legally disqualified from sitting and even if that was not the case, the rest of the panel were not disqualified. Section 8(1) of the Court of Appeal Act applied and the remaining panel could go on.

Editor's Note: The Court of Appeal's decision on the merits of Boardwalk's appeal is reported at 437 A.R. 347; 433 W.A.C. 347.

Courts - Topic 680

Judges - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed from the 2004 assessments for its 90 multi-residential properties in the City of Edmonton - The Municipal Government Board affirmed a decision of the Assessment Review Board to dismiss Boardwalk's appeals summarily because it had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor - Boardwalk applied for judicial review of the Municipal Government Board's decision - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - Oral argument was heard before a panel of the Court of Appeal consisting of Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A., and a third judge - The panel reserved judgment - The assessor suggested that an unrelated appeal by the third judge against that judge's Calgary house taxes would create an appearance of bias - The assessor moved to disqualify all three members of the panel, suggesting that the third judge had a conflict of interest, and that judge's presence had tainted the rest of the panel - The assessor alleged as a conflict of interest or disqualifying fact that the third judge had used an advocate (a chartered accountant) who worked for the same large national accounting firm as some other people who had been involved for Boardwalk at earlier stages - The third judge voluntarily decided to take no further part in the proceedings - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A., dismissed the motion for disqualification - The third judge was not legally disqualified from sitting and even if that was not the case, the rest of the panel were not disqualified - Section 8(1) of the Court of Appeal Act applied and the remaining panel could go on.

Courts - Topic 687

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - By appeal court judge - [See Courts - Topic 680 ].

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - [See Courts - Topic 680 ].

Cases Noticed:

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2004), 362 A.R. 44; 2004 ABQB 519, refd to. [para. 7].

MacEwan v. Henderson (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 692 A.P.R. 183; 2003 NSCA 133, refd to. [para. 7].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Werner, [2005] A.R. Uned. 736; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 2005 NWTCA 5, refd to. [para. 16].

Man O'War Stn. v. Auckland (City) (No. 1), [2002] 3 N.Z.L.R. 577; [2002] UKPC 18, refd to. [para. 16].

Griffiths McBurney v. Ernst & Young (YBM Magnex) - see YBM Magnex International Inc. (Receivership), Re.

YBM Magnex International Inc. (Receivership), Re (2001), 293 A.R. 337; 257 W.A.C. 337; 2001 ABCA 305, refd to. [para. 16].

Ebner v. Official Trustee, [2000] HCA 63; 205 C.L.R. 337; 176 A.L.R. 644; 75 A.L.J.R. 277, refd to. [para. 16].

Wellesley Lake Trophy Lodge Inc. v. BLD Silviculture Ltd. et al., [2006] B.C.A.C. Uned. 74; [2006] 10 W.W.R. 82; 2006 BCCA 328, refd to. [para. 26].

Banyay v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1996), 17 B.C.L.R.(3d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

G.W.L. Properties Ltd. et al. v. Grace (W.R.) & Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (No. 2) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 167; 37 W.A.C. 167; 74 B.C.L.R.(2d) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Taylor v. Lawrence, [2002] EWCA Civ. 90; [2003] Q.B. 528; [2003] 2 All E.R. 353, refd to. [para. 26].

Popke v. Bolt - see Serdahely Estate, Re.

Serdahely Estate, Re (2005), 392 A.R. 220; 2005 ABQB 861, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Nicol (J.F.) et al. (2006), 229 B.C.A.C. 280; 379 W.A.C. 280; 211 C.C.C.(3d) 33; 2006 BCCA 370, refd to. [para. 26].

Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island et al. (2005), 248 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 79; 741 A.P.R. 79; 2005 PESCAD 18, refd to. [para. 26].

Middelkamp v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2965 (S.C.), affd. (1993), 83 B.C.L.R.(2d) 257; 20 C.P.C.(3d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Makowsky v. John Doe et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. E55; 2007 BCSC 1231, affd. [2008] B.C.A.C. Uned. 22; 2008 BCCA 112, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 29].

Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451; [2000] 1 All E.R. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Benedict v. Ontario (2000), 136 O.A.C. 259; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Liszkay v. Robinson, [2003] 10 W.W.R. 441; 187 B.C.A.C. 111; 307 W.A.C. 111; 2003 BCCA 506, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Quinn (D.C.) (2006), 227 B.C.A.C. 83; 374 W.A.C. 83; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 278; 2006 BCCA 255, refd to. [para. 45].

Ibrahim v. Giuffre et al. (2000), 258 A.R. 319; 46 C.P.C.(4th) 114 (Q.B.), affd. (2000), 255 A.R. 388; 220 W.A.C. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Agar v. Morgan et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 628; 2003 BCSC 628, refd to. [para. 45].

Halliburton Enr. Services v. Smith International (N. Sea), [2006] EWCA Civ. 1599; [2007] Bus. L.R. 46, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Mohan (R.) (1994), 162 A.R. 6; 83 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 190 N.R. 399; 178 A.R. 77; 110 W.A.C. 77 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Amethyst Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd. et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 601; 2007 ABCA 355, leave to appeal refused (2008), 386 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Chaba v. Greschuk et al. (1992), 127 A.R. 133; 20 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Eckervoght et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Employment and Investment) (2004), 201 B.C.A.C. 302; 328 W.A.C. 302; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 685; 2004 BCCA 398, refd to. [para. 45].

Fletcher v. Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission (No. 1) - see Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. et al.

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. et al., [2006] 3 W.W.R. 54; 190 Man.R.(2d) 277; 335 W.A.C. 277; 2004 MBCA 192, leave to appeal refused (2005), 345 N.R. 196; 201 Man.R.(2d) 319; 366 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Walker (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 381 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Dorscheid (1991), 116 A.R. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Rando Drugs Ltd. et al. v. Scott (2007), 229 O.A.C. 1; 284 D.L.R.(4th) 756; 2007 ONCA 553, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 48].

Kapelus v. University of British Columbia et al. (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 82; 178 W.A.C. 82; 61 B.C.L.R.(3d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ebner v. Official Trustee (1999), 91 F.C.R. 353; 161 A.L.R. 557 (Aust. F.C.A.), affd. [2000] HCA 63; 205 C.L.R. 337; 176 A.L.R. 644; 75 A.L.J.R. 277, refd to. [para. 57].

Rollings v. Gallant (1983), 43 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 320; 127 A.P.R. 320 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Sussex JJ.; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256; 93 L.J.K.B. 129 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 61].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91; 335 N.R. 220; 2005 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 68].

S.G. v. Larochelle et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 326; 343 W.A.C. 326; 2005 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 68].

McElheran v. Canada et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 869; 2006 ABCA 161, refd to. [para. 72].

Mattson v. ALC Aircraft Canada Inc., [1993] B.C.T.C. 979; 18 C.P.C.(3d) 310 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Allain Sales and Services Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada (1996), 180 N.B.R.(2d) 338; 458 A.P.R. 338; 50 C.P.C.(3d) 273 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 72].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2000), 258 N.R. 119 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Ultracuts Franchises Inc. v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. (2005), 196 Man.R.(2d) 163; 19 C.P.C.(6th) 355; 2005 MBQB 222, refd to. [para. 82].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 134; 807 A.P.R. 134; 282 D.L.R.(4th) 538; 2007 NSCA 37, refd to. [para. 83].

Bygrave v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) (2006), 218 O.A.C. 104 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Melnichuk (R.M.) (2004), 200 B.C.A.C. 212; 327 W.A.C. 212; 2004 BCCA 332, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Teskey (L.M.) (1995), 167 A.R. 122 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 85].

Mountain Creeks Ranch Inc. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of Yellowhead (County) et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 896; 48 Admin. L.R.(4th) 130; 2006 ABCA 126, dist. [para. 91].

De Cotiis et al. v. De Cotiis et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 117; 2004 BCSC 117, refd to. [para. 94].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 311 F.T.R. 117; 2007 FC 533, refd to. [para. 94].

Clenae Pty. v. Quick, [1999] 2 V.R. 573 (Vict. C.A.), affd. [2000] HCA 63; 205 C.L.R. 337; 176 A.L.R. 644; 75 A.L.J.R. 277, refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-30, sect. 8(1) [para. 111].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principles for Judges (1998), para. E.3 [para. 94].

Perell, Paul M., The Disqualification of Judges and Judgments on the Grounds of Bias or the Reasonable Apprehension of Bias (2004), 29 Adv. Q. 102, pp. 107, 108 [para. 98].

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2008), p. 426 [para. 96].

Counsel:

J.E. Virtue, for the appellant, Boardwalk Reit LLP;

M.S. Young, for the respondent, City of Edmonton.

This motion for recusal was determined by Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The reasons for judgment reserved of the Court of Appeal were filed on May 15, 2008, including the following opinions:

Côté, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 113;

O'Brien, J.A. - see paragraphs 114 to 115.