Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City), 2008 ABCA 220

• Judge: Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 ABCA 220
• Citation: 2008 ABCA 220,(2008), 437 A.R. 347 (CA),299 DLR (4th) 332,[2008] 10 WWR 241,437 AR 347,91 Alta LR (4th) 1,75 Admin LR (4th) 19,47 MPLR (4th) 22,(2008), 437 AR 347 (CA),299 D.L.R. (4th) 332,437 A.R. 347
• Date: 29 November 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (2008), 437 A.R. 347 (CA);

      433 W.A.C. 347

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JN.073

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

(0603-0277-AC; 2008 ABCA 220)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A.

June 17, 2008.

Summary:

Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed to the Assessment Review Board from the 2004 assessments for its 90 multi-residential properties in the City of Edmonton. The assessor brought preliminary motions, asking that the Board refuse to hear the appeals because Boardwalk had incompletely replied to the assessor's requests for information. The Assessment Review Board upheld the assessor's objection and refused to hear the appeals. Boardwalk appealed to the Municipal Government Board, which dismissed the appeals. The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk the right to make a complaint regarding the assessments where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made under s. 295(1) of the Act. Boardwalk applied for judicial review.

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., in a decision reported at 437 A.R. 199; 433 W.A.C. 199, 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.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Côté and O'Brien, JJ.A., allowed Boardwalk's appeal on the merits. The court held that the summary dismissals by the Assessment Review Board and the Municipal Government Board contravened both the Municipal Government Act and administrative law duties of procedural fairness and natural justice. The court granted Boardwalk's application for judicial review and quashed the preliminary decisions of both Boards barring the appeals. The court declared that any gaps in the information provided by Boardwalk were not a bar under s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act and it directed the Assessment Review Board to hear all of the assessment complaints on the merits.

Administrative Law - Topic 2442

Natural justice - Procedure - Notice - When required - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 623 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed to the Assessment Review Board from the 2004 assessments for its 90 multi-residential properties - The Assessment Review Board upheld an objection by the assessor and refused to hear the appeals because Boardwalk had incompletely replied to the assessor's requests for information - Boardwalk appealed to the Municipal Government Board, which dismissed the appeals - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk the right to make a complaint regarding the assessments where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made under s. 295(1) of the Act - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the standards of review applicable to (1) the review of the Assessment Review Board's decision by the Municipal Government Board; (2) the review of the Municipal Government Board's decision by the Court of Queen's Bench; and (3) on appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench to the Court of Appeal - See paragraphs 11 to 36.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 623

Assessment - The assessor - Duties of (incl. duty of fairness) - Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed from the 2004 assessments for its 90 multi-residential properties - The Assessment Review Board upheld an objection by the assessor that it should refuse to hear the appeals because Boardwalk had incompletely replied to the assessor's requests for information - Boardwalk appealed to the Municipal Government Board, which dismissed the appeals - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk the right to make a complaint regarding the asessments where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made under s. 295(1) - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held, inter alia, that the assessor had a duty to be fair and that the assessor violated natural justice, and had no right to move to quash all 90 appeals to the Assessment Review Board summarily, without any kind of notice of default to Boardwalk - See paragraphs 157 to 181.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk Reit LLP the right to make a complaint regarding the 2004 assessments of its multi-residential properties where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor under s. 295(1) - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court considered, inter alia, that in cases involving the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court of Canada had held that the Minister could not demand from one taxpayer information about its general operations, so as to assess the accuracy of assessments of a class of other taxpayers - Such information demands had to be for the taxation of a specific taxpayer then under investigation - The court stated that "the assessor and the Municipal Government Board's reasons both clearly fail the Supreme Court's tests. For example, the Board said that an information request is proper and operative if the assessor thinks that it is, and if he wants to use the information merely to develop or create 'a mass appraisal model', which model will in turn later be used to 'determine the best valuation approach to capture market value' ... Even if the standard of review is reasonableness, questioning and acting on the reasons for a citizen's not doing what the citizen has the right not to do, is unreasonable" - See paragraphs 50 to 56.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk Reit LLP the right to make a complaint regarding the 2004 assessments of its multi-residential properties where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor under s. 295(1) of the Act - The Municipal Government Board held that a taxpayer's compliance had to be "full", and that "partial compliance" did not count - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court referred to the maxim that the law does not demand impossible things - It also referred to the axiom of construction that where an Act can be construed more than one way, courts must reject any alternative which is manifestly absurd, or extremely harsh, unjust or capricious - The court stated that "both the absurdity and impossibility canons must be used to interpret two key passages: 'failed to provide the information' in s. 295(4); and 'information necessary for the assessor to prepare an assessment' in s. 295(1)" - Given the harsh and unjust result, and the Municipal Government Board's rigid tests for compliance, the Board's approach to interpretation was unreasonable (and wrong in principle) - See paragraph 81.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk Reit LLP the right to make a complaint regarding the 2004 assessments of its multi-residential properties where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor under s. 295(1) of the Act - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court stated, inter alia, that "The Municipal Government Board expressly made a fact finding: the assessor's request here lacked some clarity ... However, the Board declined to do anything about the obscurity of the assessor's questions here, because it thought the appellant taxpayer sophisticated. But that is illogical. An ambiguous or vague request is no less ambiguous when a business virtuoso hears it. An education may simply reveal more alternatives or contradictions in the question. The Board then imposed another unreasonable double standard. It ruled that the taxpayer had a duty to ask to clarify the assessor's question, but that the assessor had no duty to ask to clarify the taxpayer's answer ... An error in logic cannot be reasonable" - See paragraphs 94 to 97.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk Reit LLP the right to make a complaint regarding the 2004 assessments of its multi-residential properties where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor under s. 295(1) of the Act - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court stated, inter alia, that "The penalty in s. 295(4) applies only if there has been a failure to provide information 'requested under subsection (1)'. And subsection (1) allows an assessor to request only 'information necessary for the assessor to prepare an assessment'" - The court held that the Municipal Government Board's interpretation of "necessary" was unreasonable - The information which the assessor did not receive was not needed to assess the Boardwalk properties - By the time that Boardwalk's answers fell due, most of the assessor's analysis had already taken place and the assessor wanted to use the missing data for: (a) "mass assessment" and (b) to check assessment figures reached by other more direct ways, and correct anomalies in some cases - The purposes of statistical cross-checking and evaluation of general methods, did not fit within the words "to prepare an assessment" - The phrase "to prepare an assessment" showed that specific property was being assessed - General statistical or preliminary method studies did not do that - The Municipal Government Board ignored the statutory precondition of assessing this property - See paragraphs 98 to 129.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - Section 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act provided that "No person may make a complaint in the year following the assessment year ... about an assessment if the person has failed to provide the information requested under subsection (1) within 60 days from the date of the request" - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that s. 295 authorized only reasonable information requests, and penalized only unreasonable failures to answer them - See paragraph 130.

Real Property Tax - Topic 625

Assessment - The assessor - Power to request information relevant to assessment - Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed from the 2004 assessments for its multi-residential properties - The Assessment Review Board upheld an objection by the assessor that it should refuse to hear the appeals because Boardwalk had incompletely replied to the assessor's requests for information - Boardwalk appealed to the Municipal Government Board, which dismissed the appeals - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk the right to make a complaint regarding the assessments where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made under s. 295(1) - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The Municipal Government Board should have applied a "substantial compliance" test - The court considered the matter of substantial compliance in the context of the alleged gaps in Boardwalk's information - The court declared that any gaps in the information provided were not a bar under s. 295(4) - See paragraphs 182 to 216.

Real Property Tax - Topic 2582

The assessment roll - Preparing the roll - Request for information - [See all Real Property Tax - Topic 625 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7008

Assessment appeals - General principles - When available - Boardwalk Reit LLP appealed from the 2004 assessments for its multi-residential properties - The Assessment Review Board upheld an objection by the assessor and refused to hear the appeals because Boardwalk had incompletely replied to the assessor's requests for information - Boardwalk appealed to the Municipal Government Board, which dismissed the appeals - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk the right to make a complaint regarding the assessments where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made under s. 295(1) - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held, inter alia, that the Municipal Government Board may have asked the wrong question where it considered the necessity of the information requested and received, rather than considering whether the information which the assessor claimed was not provided by Boardwalk was necessary - The court stated that "the alleged bar to the appeals rests entirely on the bits of information which the appellant allegedly did not provide. So most of the Board's discussion validated the irrelevant and ignored the relevant" - See paragraphs 37 to 48.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7008

Assessment appeals - General principles - When available - The Municipal Government Board held that s. 295(4) of the Municipal Government Act denied Boardwalk Reit LLP the right to make a complaint regarding the 2004 assessments of its multi-residential properties where Boardwalk had not fully complied with requests for information made by the assessor under s. 295(1) of the Act - Boardwalk applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Boardwalk appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court stated, inter alia, that "The assessor's argument and the Queen's Bench Reasons proceed as though s. 295(4) operated automatically, always barring appeals, unbidden by the respondent to such appeals. I respectfully disagree" - The court stated that an automatic rigid bar to appeal from any gap in any answer would be an "absurd" interpretation of the Act - See paragraphs 137 to 155.

Statutes - Topic 1407

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Avoidance of injustice - [See second Real Property Tax - Topic 625 ].

Statutes - Topic 1407.1

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Avoidance of impossibility ("lex non cogit ad impossibilia") - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the maxim of law "lex non cogit ad impossibilia": the law does not demand impossible things - The court stated that "Courts interpret statutes to relieve against more than total physical impossibility. They demand of the citizen neither extreme ingenuity, superhuman effort, nor massive unusual resources to comply with an Act. All practical endeavors and a fair trial suffice" - See paragraphs 75 to 76.

Statutes - Topic 1407.1

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Avoidance of impossibility ("lex non cogit ad impossibilia") - [See second Real Property Tax - Topic 625 ].

Statutes - Topic 1408

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Avoidance of absurdity - [See second Real Property Tax - Topic 625 and second Real Property Tax - Topic 7008 ].

Cases Noticed:

Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. v. 826167 Alberta Inc. (2007), 404 A.R. 212; 394 W.A.C. 212; 2007 ABCA 131, leave to appeal denied (2007), 379 N.R. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

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. 12].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2007), 414 A.R. 216; 70 Alta. L.R.(4th) 98; 2007 ABQB 47, revd. (2008), 432 A.R. 202; 424 W.A.C. 202; 2008 ABCA 187, refd to. [para. 14].

Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan et al., [2006] 12 W.W.R. 90; 289 Sask.R. 36; 382 W.A.C. 36; 2006 SKCA 105, refd to. [para. 15].

Plimmer v. Chief of Police et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 62; 329 W.A.C. 62; 2004 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 15].

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152; 324 N.R. 259; 189 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 18].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 2004 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 19].

Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591; 359 N.R. 199; 2007 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 19].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada - see VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al.

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 19].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Green Bay Health Centre - see Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al.

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 3; 196 N.R. 212; 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63; 438 A.P.R. 63, refd to. [para. 20].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 20].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 20].

Starson v. Swayze et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722; 304 N.R. 326; 173 O.A.C. 210; 2003 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 20].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 20].

Johnston et al. v. Director of Vital Statistics (Alta.) et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 147; 429 W.A.C. 147; 2008 ABCA 188, refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Canada (Attorney General), [1962] S.C.R. 729; 62 D.T.C. 1236, refd to. [para. 51].

Richardson (James) & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614; 54 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 51].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. v. Minister of Municipal Affairs - see Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al.

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 161; 234 W.A.C. 161; 2000 ABCA 252, refd to. [para. 57].

Talisman Energy Inc. v. Alberta (Municipal Affairs, Linear Assessor), [2000] A.M.G.B.O. No. 26, refd to. [para. 61].

Ship Generous, Re (1818), 2 Dods. 322; 165 E.R. 1501, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Surrey Justices (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 100 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

St-Hilaire et al. v. Bégin et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79; 38 N.R. 253, refd to. [para. 76].

Gonneville v. Bourassa, [1964] Que. S.C. 183, refd to. [para. 76].

Poulin v. Morency (Serge) et Associés Inc., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 351; 245 N.R. 312; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 283, refd to. [para. 78].

Simms v. Registrar of Probates, [1900] A.C. 323 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Ship Longford, Re (1889), 14 P.D. 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Attorney General v. Parsons, [1956] A.C. 421; [1956] 1 All E.R. 65 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 79].

Kammin's Ballroom Co. v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd., [1971] A.C. 850; [1970] 2 All E.R. 871 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Skeen (1859), 28 L.J.M.C. 91 (C.C.C.R.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Sinclair (1972), 6 C.C.C.(2d) 523 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Campbell v. Dalhousie (1868), L.R. 1 Sc. & D. 259 (H.L.(Sc)), refd to. [para. 80].

Kisil Hotel Ltd. v. Winnipeg City Assessor (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 179; 407 W.A.C. 179; 286 D.L.R.(4th) 50; 2007 MBCA 114, refd to. [para. 93].

Dukart v. Surrey (District) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1039; 21 N.R. 471; [1978] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 108].

Re Inquiry Under Company Securities etc. Act, [1988] 1 A.C. 660 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 121].

Langdon v. T.F.C., [1966] 1 O.R. 655 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Defence Secy. v. Guardian Newspaper, [1985] 1 A.C. 339 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 121].

Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865; 349 N.R. 1; 212 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 122].

CCH Canadian Ltd. et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339; 317 N.R. 107; 2004 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 122].

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. 122].

McBratney v. McBratney (1919), 59 S.C.R. 550, refd to. [para. 123].

Alberta Provincial Judges' Association v. Alberta, [1999] 12 W.W.R. 66; 237 A.R. 276; 197 W.A.C. 276 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [2000] 1 S.C.R. xviii; 258 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 129].

Toronto Railway Co. v. Toronto (City), [1920] A.C. 446 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 147].

Harwood & Cooper v. Wilkinson, [1930] 2 D.L.R. 199 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1931] S.C.R. 141, refd to. [para. 147].

Labour Relations Board (Sask.) v. Daschuk Lumber Ltd., [1976] 5 W.W.R. 562 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 147].

Axelrod v. Toronto (1985), 52 O.R.(2d) 440 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 147].

Ontario (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services) v. Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board et al. (2006), 213 O.A.C. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 147].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 161].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 164].

Ag Pro Grain Management Services Ltd. et al. v. Lacombe (County) et al. (2006), 402 A.R. 199; 2006 ABQB 351, refd to. [para. 164].

Edmonton Police Association et al. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2007), 409 A.R. 1; 402 W.A.C. 1; 283 D.L.R.(4th) 695; 2007 ABCA 184, refd to. [para. 164].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 174].

Anderson v. Alberta Securities Commission (2008), 437 A.R. 55; 433 W.A.C. 55; 2008 ABCA 184, refd to. [para. 174].

Miller (Ed) Sales & Rentals v. Canada Imperial Bank of Commerce (1987), 79 A.R. 161; 51 Alta. L.R.(2d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 185].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Portage Credit Union Ltd. (1989), 61 Man.R.(2d) 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 190].

Hongkong Bank of Canada v. Sheckter, [1989] A.U.D. 325; J.D.E. 8603-16364 (Master), refd to. [para. 190].

Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP et al. (2008), 432 A.R. 188; 424 W.A.C. 188; 2008 ABCA 160, refd to. [para. 214].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 295(1) [para. 59]; sect. 295(4) [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 308, 309 [para. 122]; 332 [para. 108]; 448 to 450 [para. 78].

de Smith, Stanley Alexander, Woolf, Harry, and Jowell, Jeffrey L., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (6th Ed. 2007), paras. 6.010 ff., 7.043 ff [para. 156].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955) (1961 Update), vol. 36, pp. 395 [para. 102]; 408 [para. 78].

Kerans, Roger P., and Willey, Kim M., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (2nd Ed. 2006), c. 11 [para. 12]; pp. 178 to 186 [para. 22].

Tennyson, Alfred Lord, The Charge of the Light Brigade (1854), generally [para. 65].

Williston, W.B., and Rolls, R.J., The Law of Civil Procedure (1970), vol. 2, pp. 944, 945 [para. 147].

Counsel:

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

M. Young and D.L. Piecowye, for the respondent/respondent, City of Edmonton;

M. d'Alquen, for the respondent/respondent, Municipal Government Board.

This appeal was heard on November 29, 2007, with further written arguments filed on January 16 and 31, 2008, by Côte and O'Brien, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment reserved were delivered by Côte, J.A., and were filed on June 17, 2008.