Calgary (City) v. Manyluk, (2012) 535 A.R. 371 (QB)

• Judge: Jones, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 535 A.R. 371 (QB);2012 ABQB 178

Calgary v. Manyluk (2012), 535 A.R. 371 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MR.150

City of Calgary (applicant) v. William H. Manyluk (respondent)

(1101 12156; 2012 ABQB 178)

Indexed As: Calgary (City) v. Manyluk

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Jones, J.

March 20, 2012.

Summary:

Since 1985, Manyluk had challenged many of his annual property assessments. The challenges led to several proceedings before various Assessment Tribunals, the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal. The City of Calgary applied under Part 2.1 of the Judicature Act for an order dealing with vexatious proceedings.

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

Actions - Topic 2601

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - General - Since 1985, Manyluk had challenged many of his annual property assessments - The challenges led to several proceedings before various Assessment Tribunals, the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal - Manyluk would typically raise the same or similar issues - The City of Calgary applied under Part 2.1 of the Judicature Act for an order dealing with vexatious proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - Examining the context in which the word "proceedings" was used in s. 23(2) of the Act, that term included proceedings before administrative tribunals - see paragraphs 51 to 73 - It was clear that securing an accurate value for the property was not Manyluk's objective - Rather, his objective was to obtain information to which he knew he was not entitled and to demonstrate his belief that the City's assessment methodology was flawed - Neither the Assessment Tribunal nor the court was the appropriate forum in which to pursue a change to that methodology - Further, Manyluk seemed prepared to take his repetitive applications to ever greater lengths - While he had made many appearances before the Assessment Tribunals, he had, to date, brought his arguments only four times to the Court of Queen's Bench and twice to the Court of Appeal - However, he was clearly undeterred by his lack of success in the courts - Whether proceedings could be considered vexatious was not based solely on their numbers - There was no "threshold" number of appearances Manyluk had to make in the Court of Queen's Bench or in the Court of Appeal before those appearances could be characterized as vexatious - In the court's view, Manyluk already had demonstrated the kind of persistence contemplated by s. 23(2) of the Judicature Act and intervention was warranted - See paragraphs 74 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

Estevan Coal Corp. v. Estevan No. 5 (Rural Municipality) et al., [2000] 8 W.W.R. 474; 199 Sask.R. 57; 232 W.A.C. 57; 2000 SKCA 82, refd to. [para. 21].

Kramer Ltd. v. Sherwood No. 159 (Rural Municipality) et al. (2003), 241 Sask.R. 67; 313 W.A.C. 67; 2003 SKCA 121, refd to. [para. 21].

Nortel Networks Inc. v. Calgary (City) et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 325; 438 W.A.C. 325; 2008 ABCA 370, refd to. [para. 21].

Minister of National Revenue v. Olympic Interiors Ltd. et al. (2001), 209 F.T.R. 182 (T.D.), affd. (2004), 323 N.R. 191 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Mishra v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] N.R. Uned. 181 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Foy v. Foy (No. 2) (1979), 26 O.R.(2d) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Midwest Property Management v. Moore (2003), 341 A.R. 386; 2003 ABQB 581, refd to. [para. 49].

Household Trust Co. v. Golden Horse Farms Inc. and Nelson (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 302; 24 W.A.C. 302; 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Prince Edward Island v. Ayangma (1999), 174 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 358; 533 A.P.R. 358 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 201; 2004 ABQB 593, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. J.Y. (1996), 141 Sask.R. 132; 114 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

O'Neill et al. v. Deacons et al. (2007), 441 A.R. 60; 2007 ABQB 754, refd to. [para. 60].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2011), 518 A.R. 35; 2011 ABQB 462, refd to. [para. 60].

Henry v. El et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 451; 2010 ABCA 312, refd to. [para. 60].

Wong et al. v. Giannacopoulos et al. (2011), 510 A.R. 234; 527 W.A.C. 234; 2011 ABCA 206, refd to. [para. 60].

Bailey v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada (1987), 77 A.R. 387; 52 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, refd to. [para. 67].

Del Bianco et al. v. 935074 Alberta Ltd. et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 556; 2007 ABQB 150, refd to. [para. 71].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, sect. 23 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Susan Trylinski (City of Calgary Law Department), for the applicant;

William Manyluk, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 24, 2012, by Jones, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 20, 2012.