Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.), (2006) 393 A.R. 310 (QB)

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 21, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 393 A.R. 310 (QB);2006 ABQB 293

Can. Lands Co. v. Municipal Govt. Bd. ( 2006 ), 393 A.R. 310 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MY.048

In The Matter Of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000 C. M-26, as Amended;

And In The Matter Of Board Order: MGB 101/05.

Canada Lands Company CLC Limited (applicant) v. The Municipal Government Board (respondent)

(0503 20281; 2006 ABQB 293)

Indexed As: Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

April 21, 2006.

Summary:

The applicant sought judicial review of an order of the Municipal Government Board rendered on appeal from a review by the Assessment Review Board of a 2003 municipal tax assessment of lands owned by the applicant.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration in light of these reasons.

Real Property Tax - Topic 2544

The assessment roll - Contents of roll - Errors - Correction - The applicant purchased a former military base in the City of Edmonton from the Department of National Defence (DND) - In 2003, the City assessed the land at $81,024,000 - The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessment to $54,646,160 and entered it on the City assessment roll under a master account with six sub-accounts - The applicant appealed and the City cross-appealed - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) determined that although the sub-accounts were a result of an historical agreement between DND and the City, and had been retained for the sake of administrative expediency and other practical reasons, these factors did not alter the requirement that the assessment had to conform to s. 303 of the Municipal Government Act (description of the property) - The use of sub-accounts to develop a master account number was valid - However, issuing assessment notices under those sub-accounts was a contravention of the Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the MGB's decision on this issue was reasonable - So long as there was a complaint that the description of the property did not conform to the Act, which in essence was what the applicant's appeal to the ARB was about, the ARB could correct the roll under s. 467(1)(b) of the Act to change the description - Pursuant to s. 499(d) of the Act, the MGB could render any decision that the ARB could make - See paragraphs 62 to 69.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5103

Valuation - Land - Highest and best use - The applicant purchased a former military base in the City of Edmonton from the Department of National Defence (DND) - In 2003, the City assessed the land at $81,024,000 - The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessment to $54,646,160 - The applicant appealed and the City cross-appealed - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) further reduced the assessment to $52,489,000 - The MGB gave a $1,000 scrap value to non-residential improvements with no continued utility - The applicant sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The decision was unreasonable - There was no evidence that anyone would be prepared to pay $1,000 per building or anything at all for the privilege of scavenging materials from the structures before or after they were bulldozed - See paragraphs 111 to 116.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5103

Valuation - Land - Highest and best use - The applicant purchased a former military base in the City of Edmonton from the Department of National Defence (DND) - In 2003, the City assessed the land at $81,024,000 - The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessment to $54,646,160 - The applicant appealed and the City cross-appealed - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) further reduced the assessment to $52,489,000 - The MGB held that the highest and best use for the property was not the same for each of its components - It concluded that the highest and best use for excess and undeveloped land was mixed-use residential development and for the in-use non-residential and residential components was in the continued use of those improvements along with a reasonable amount of lands to support the improvements - The applicant sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The MGB's decision on the highest and best use of the non-vacant land was unreasonable in view of its failure to address the highly relevant evidence that a developer would not pay more for the site than the market value of the vacant land, and the evidence of the City's own witness that the highest and best use of the lands was for redevelopment - See paragraphs 71 to 107.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5309

Valuation - Valuation principles - Uniformity - Similar assessments/values for similar properties - The applicant purchased a former military base in the City of Edmonton from the Department of National Defence (DND) - In 2003, the City assessed the land at $81,024,000 - The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessment to $54,646,160 - The applicant appealed and the City cross-appealed - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) further reduced the assessment to $52,489,000 - The MGB found that the contributory value of the property's existing residential housing stock had to be equivalent to similar and comparable residential complexes within the neighbouring communities - The applicant sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The MGB, in spite of the evidence that these dwellings were atypical, ignored the actual income and expenses as proved to them in favour of the approach taken by the City; that is, one starting from a two percent typical vacancy rate, with an arbitrarily selected additional vacancy rate allowance - The MGB also ignored actual expenses - As a result, its valuation of the residential improvements was unreasonable - See paragraphs 118 to 132.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - The applicant sought judicial review of an order of the Municipal Government Board (MGB) rendered on appeal from a review by the Assessment Review Board of a 2003 municipal tax assessment of lands owned by the applicant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the weak privative clause (Municipal Government Act, s. 506), the MGB's expertise gleaned from experience, the purpose of the Act and that the nature of the problem was one of mixed fact and law and concluded that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraphs 18 to 47.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7005

Assessment appeals - General principles - Persons entitled to appeal - The applicant purchased a former military base in the City of Edmonton from the Department of National Defence - In 2003, the City assessed the land at $81,024,000 - The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessment to $54,646,160 and entered it on the City assessment roll under a master account with six sub-accounts - The applicant appealed and the City cross-appealed - The applicant argued that because the City had not appealed the master account, which was the only legally valid account, it was not a proper cross-appellant - The Municipal Government Board (MGB) rejected the argument and stated that because the master account was identified in the ARB decision, it was part of the City's cross-appeal - The applicant sought judicial review -  The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the MGB's decision on this issue - The appeal and cross-appeal were of the ARB decision - The ARB decision dealt with the property assessments entered on the assessment roll under the master account, with six sub-accounts - The sub-accounts had no existence apart from the master account - See paragraphs 60 and 61.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7220

Assessment appeals - Practice - Judicial review - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7003 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 18].

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; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 19].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 18].

Bonnyville No. 87 (Municipal District) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) (1999), 248 A.R. 32; 1999 ABQB 417, refd to. [para. 23].

Eaton (T.) Co. v. Assessment Appeal Board (Alta.) (1995), 174 A.R. 99; 102 W.A.C. 99; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) et al. (2006), 376 A.R. 44; 360 W.A.C. 44; 2006 ABCA 9, refd to. [para. 24].

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, leave to appeal refused (2003), 314 N.R. 208 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

University of Alberta v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 378; 343 W.A.C. 378; 2005 ABCA 147, refd to. [para. 25].

Calgary (City) v. Northland Properties Ltd. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 443; 40 M.P.L.R.(3d) 90; 2003 ABQB 668, refd to. [para. 25].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 353 A.R. 332; 2004 ABQB 85, refd to. [para. 26].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 488; 40 Alta. L.R.(4th) 297;  2004 ABQB 510, refd to. [para. 26].

697604 Alberta Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 537; 11 M.P.L.R.(4th) 295; 2005 ABQB 512, refd to. [para. 26].

FHR Real Estate Corp. v. Banff (Town) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 882; 34 Alta. L.R.(4th) 50; 2004 ABQB 557, refd to. [para. 31].

Chateau Lake Louise Corp. v. Improvement District No. 9 et al. (2004), 366 A.R. 318; 2004 ABQB 579, refd to. [para. 35].

Calgary (City) v. Lougheed & Co. et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 363; 299 W.A.C. 363; 16 Alta. L.R.(4th) 215; 2003 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 40].

R & S Resource Services Ltd. v. Red Deer (County) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 390; 3 M.P.L.R.(4th) 212; 2004 ABCA 354, refd to. [para. 47].

Dallinga v. Calgary (City) (1975), 62 D.L.R.(3d) 433 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 49].

Keephills Aggregate Co. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Parkland County) et al. (2003), 348 A.R. 41; 321 W.A.C. 41; 2003 ABCA 242, refd to. [para. 50].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449; 7 Alta. L.R.(2d) 370, refd to. [para. 50].

Burnco Rock Products Ltd. v. Rockyview No. 44 (Municipal District) (2000), 261 A.R. 148; 225 W.A.C. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Lor-Al Springs Ltd. et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Ponoka (County)) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 149; 234 W.A.C. 149; 2000 ABCA 299, refd to. [para. 51].

Sawatzky v. Universities Academic Pension Plan Board (1992), 9 Admin. L.R.(2d) 109 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

Briarwood Investment Corp. v. Winnipeg City Assessor (2004), 187 Man.R.(2d) 316; 330 W.A.C. 316; 2004 MBCA 103, refd to. [para. 55].

Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. François Xavier (Rural Municipality), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 164; 61 N.R. 321; 36 Man.R.(2d) 215; 18 Admin. L.R. 59,  refd to. [para. 56].

Danson v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.), Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Booth and Palmateer (1983), 47 A.R. 274; 27 Alta. L.R.(2d) 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 57].

Siksika Nation v. Walji Holdings Ltd. et al. (2004), 350 A.R. 324; 2004 ABQB 37, refd to. [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1994), p. 307 [para. 52].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), p. 522 [para. 56].

Laux, Frederick A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 10-33 [para. 46].

Counsel:

K. D. Wakefield, Q.C. (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the applicant;

Mark Talaga (Alberta Justice) Municipal Affairs, for the respondent, Municipal Government Board;

Mark Young (City of Edmonton, Law Branch), for the City of Edmonton.

This application was heard on March 7 and 10, 2006, by Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 21, 2006.