Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., 2004 ABQB 85

• Judge: Park, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 2003
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 85;(2004), 353 A.R. 332 (QB)

Calgary v. Municipal Govt Bd. (2004), 353 A.R. 332 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. FE.068

The City of Calgary (applicant) v. Municipal Government Board and Louis Chow (respondents) and Deloitte & Touche LLP (intervenor)

(0301 03634; 2004 ABQB 85)

Indexed As: Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Park, J.

February 6, 2004.

Summary:

Chow, a Calgary property owner, filed a property tax assessment complaint with the Assessment Review Board (ARB). He was advised that his complaint was out of time and invalid. Chow appealed. The Municipal Government Board (MGB) allowed the appeal and ordered the ARB to hear Chow's appeal on the merits. The City of Calgary sought judicial review of the MGB's decision.

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

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) allowed Chow's appeal respecting his property tax assessment and ordered the Assessment Review Board (ARB) to hear Chow's appeal on the merits - The decision concerned the deadline to file assessment complaints under s. 309 and s. 311 of the Municipal Government Act - A municipality (Calgary) sought judicial review of the MGB's decision - Meanwhile, the ARB held a hearing and confirmed the property tax assessment - Therefore, Chow declined to participate in the judicial review application - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the application was a mere academic exercise as far as Chow was concerned - However, Calgary and its taxpayers had a real and significant interest in having the issue decided on its merits - There would be many future complaints flowing from Calgary's property assessments - It was imperative to determine Calgary's rights and the taxpayers' rights to file a proper appeal within the time limits set out in the legislation - See paragraphs 21 to 37.

Real Property Tax - Topic 43

General principles - Interpretation of taxing statute - In favour of taxpayer - Section 309(1)(c) of the Municipal Government Act required that municipal property tax assessments indicate a date, not less than 30 days after the assessments were sent, by which a property owner had to file a complaint respecting the property tax assessed -Section 311(1) required that municipalities publish a notice in the newspaper, having general circulation in the municipality, that the assessment notices had been sent - Section 311(2) stated that all assessed persons were deemed to have received their assessment notices as a result of the newspaper publication - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) ruled that the 30 day period to file a complaint started to run once the assessed person actually received the assessment notice (not when it was sent) - If there was no evidence of receipt, s. 23 of the Interpretation Act applied and deemed receipt to be seven days from the date of mailing - The MGB held that the deemed receipt provision in s. 311(2) could not operate to reduce the minimum 30 days to make a complaint - On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the MGB's decision was not patently unreasonable - If there was a question as to the interpretation to be given to ss. 309 and 311, any uncertainty had to be resolved in favour of the taxpayer - Section 309(1)(c) should be strictly construed to allow for a period of no less than 30 days from receipt of the assessment notice for filing a complaint - See paragraphs 4 to 15 and 55 to 77.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) allowed Chow's appeal respecting his property tax assessment - The decision concerned the deadline to file assessment complaints under s. 309 and s. 311 of the Municipal Government Act - A municipality (Calgary) sought judicial review of the MGB's decision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicable privative clause (weak), the MGB's expertise (considerable), the purpose of the legislation and the nature of the problem (interpretation of the Act, an issue of mixed fact and law), pointed to a high level of deference for the MGB's decision - The appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 38 to 54.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7303

Assessment appeals - Notice of appeal or application - Time for giving or filing - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 43 ].

Cases Noticed:

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 29].

British Columbia Transit v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.) and McCabe (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 20; 1 W.A.C. 20; 56 B.C.L.R.(2d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Vic Restaurant Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1959] S.C.R. 58, refd to. [para. 36].

Henning v. Calgary (City) (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 762 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Army & Navy Department Stores Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [2003] A.J. No. 967 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 37].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222, refd to. [para. 38].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 39].

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 40; 281 W.A.C. 40; 2002 ABCA 199, refd to. [para. 42].

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Telus Communications Inc. - see Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al.

Calgary (City) v. Northland Properties Ltd. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 443 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 54].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Switzer's Investments Ltd. v. Calgary (City), [1999] A.J. No. 1662 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

Bowen v. Edmonton (City) (1977), 3 A.R. 63; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 493; 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302, refd to. [para. 73].

Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 60 N.R. 244 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 309(1)(c), sect. 311(1), sect. 311(2) [para. 14].

Counsel:

Marnie B. Rusen, for the applicant;

Mark Talaga, for the respondents;

Julie C. Whitaker, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on June 26, 2003, by Park, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 6, 2004.