Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., 2008 ABCA 187

• Judge: McFadyen, Ritter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: Wednesday October 10, 2007
• Citations: 2008 ABCA 187;(2008), 432 A.R. 202 (CA)

Calgary v. Municipal Govt. Bd. (2008), 432 A.R. 202 (CA);

      424 W.A.C. 202

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. MY.112

The City of Calgary (respondent/appellant) v. The Municipal Government Board (respondent/respondent) and Hudson's Bay Company (appellant/respondent)

(0701-0079-AC; 2008 ABCA 187)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, Ritter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

May 21, 2008.

Summary:

The Hudson's Bay Company, as anchor tenant of four shopping centres, filed Assessment Review Board (ARB) complaints regarding the assessment attributable to its space in the centres. The ARB held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints. The Bay appealed to the Municipal Government Board (MGB). The appeal was allowed. The MGB held that the ARB had a duty to hear the complaints. The city sought judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 414 A.R. 216, allowed the application. The MGB's decision was set aside. The court granted a declaration that the Bay was neither an "assessed person" nor a "taxpayer" entitled to file complaints or appeals regarding the shopping centres' property assessments. The Bay appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the MGB for decision.

Municipal Law - Topic 2104

Municipal taxation or levies - General - Legislation - Interpretation - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7005 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - A department store tenant (the Bay) of four shopping centres filed Assessment Review Board (ARB) complaints regarding the assessment attributable to its space in the centres - Under s. 460(3) of the Municipal Government Act, a complaint could be made only by "an assessed person or a taxpayer" - The ARB held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints - The Bay's appeal to the Municipal Government Board (MGB) was allowed - As an assessed person in the city through its ownership of a downtown store, the Bay could file a complaint - The city's application for judicial review was allowed on a standard of review of correctness - The Bay was not entitled to file a complaint - In allowing the Bay's appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the reasonableness standard applied - The question involved the MGB interpreting its own statute - This would typically be subject to deference - While the appeal involved an issue of law, it also required consideration of policy issues - The MGB was particularly familiar with those issues and well suited to address them - The question was not jurisdictional in the narrow sense and did not constitute a question of importance to the legal system as a whole - See paragraphs 13 to 21.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7005

Assessment appeals - General principles - Persons entitled to appeal - A department store tenant (the Bay) of four shopping centres filed Assessment Review Board (ARB) complaints regarding the assessment attributable to its space in the centres - Under s. 460(3) of the Municipal Government Act, a complaint could be made only by "an assessed person or a taxpayer" - The ARB held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints - The Bay's appeal to the Municipal Government Board (MGB) was allowed - As an assessed person in the city through its ownership of a downtown store, the Bay could file a complaint - The MGB's decision was set aside on judicial review - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Bay's appeal - The ordinary meaning of "an assessed person" and "a taxpayer" implied that any assessed person or taxpayer could make a complaint regarding any assessed property - Reading the statute as a whole reinforced the ordinary meaning - Other provisions recognized that a complainant and the assessed person for a property might be two distinct entities - Owners of assessed properties and other taxpayers had an interest in ensuring that assessments reflected full value and could have reason to make a complaint - The MGB's decision was reasonable and deserved deference - The Bay was an assessed person by virtue of its ownership of the downtown store and had the right to make a complaint regarding the shopping centres' assessments - See paragraphs 24 to 35 and 38.

Words and Phrases

Assessed person - The Alberta Court of Appeal considered the meaning of this phrase as found in s. 460(3) of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 - See paragraphs 24 to 35.

Words and Phrases

Taxpayer - The Alberta Court of Appeal considered the meaning of "taxpayer" as found in s. 460(3) of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 - See paragraphs 24 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 8].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 13].

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 40; 281 W.A.C. 40; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 61; 2002 ABCA 199, refd to. [para. 13].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, appld. [para. 14].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 18].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 460(3) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 309 [para. 29].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 162 [para. 29].

Counsel:

G.J. Ludwig and J.B. Laycraft, Q.C., for the appellant;

L.J. Gosselin, for the respondent, the City of Calgary;

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

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2007, by McFadyen, Ritter and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. McFadyen, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment reserved for the court on May 21, 2008.