Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Wood Buffalo (Regional Municipality) et al., (2013) 557 A.R. 207 (QB)

• Judge: Verville, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 557 A.R. 207 (QB);2013 ABQB 91

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Wood Buffalo (2013), 557 A.R. 207 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. AP.113

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (applicant) v. The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Composite Assessment Review Board and The Minister of Justice, Attorney General for Alberta (respondents)

(1113 00044; 1113 00090; 2013 ABQB 91)

Indexed As: Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Wood Buffalo (Regional Municipality) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Fort McMurray

Verville, J.

February 6, 2013.

Summary:

The applicant (CNRL) sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act, challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 535 A.R. 281, allowed the application in part, granting leave to appeal on three questions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part. The court held that (1) CARB's decision that the Municipality had complied with CNRL's s. 299 request to see or receive sufficient information to show how the assessor prepared its property assessment was reasonable; (2) CARB's decision that CNRL failed to raise equity as an issue in its Complaint Form and was therefore precluded from raising it in the hearing on the merits was unreasonable; and (3) CARB's decision that each party bore the onus to prove the included cost amount they believed was correct was reasonable.

Editor's Note: An application for a stay in this proceeding was granted at 516 A.R. 51.

Practice - Topic 8985

Appeals - When appeal available - From interlocutory ruling - CNRL sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act, challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the following three questions: (1) did CARB err in finding that the Municipality had complied with CNRL's s. 299 request?; (2) did CARB err in finding that CNRL failed to raise equity as an issue in its Complaint Form and was therefore precluded from raising it in the hearing on the merits?; and (3) did CARB err in finding that each party bore the onus to prove the included cost amount they believe was correct? - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "During the hearing, the parties persuaded me that at this time, given the steps taken to arrive to this point, a decision on the merits was warranted and was welcomed by all those involved. I have decided to address the merits but not without some misgivings. Based on the information before the Court and the time elapsed pending this interlocutory appeal, in my view it is speculative that any efficiencies will ultimately have been gained or costs avoided as a result of appealing the interlocutory rulings as opposed to appealing a final decision." - See paragraph 16.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5268

Valuation - Valuation principles - Equity - CNRL sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the question, inter alia, of whether CARB erred in finding that CNRL failed to raise equity as an issue in its Complaint Form and was therefore precluded from raising it in the hearing on the merits - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "a fair and objective reading of the complaint in the circumstances can only lead to the conclusion that the CARB was unreasonable in finding that CNRL had not raised the issue of equity. In fact, the issue of equitable and correct application of the guidelines is at the heart of the complaint. Aside from the express reference to inequity, CNRL specifically raised the issue of whether or not the assessor had used this approach with other facilities, which goes to consistent and equitable application of the guidelines, as required by s. 293(1)(a) MGA" - See paragraphs 51 to 53 and 59 to 69.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5268

Valuation - Valuation principles - Equity - CNRL sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the question, inter alia, of whether the CARB erred in finding that CNRL failed to raise equity as an issue in its Complaint Form and was therefore precluded from raising it in the hearing on the merits - CARB had relied on s. 9 of the Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation (MRAC) which sanctioned certain types of non-disclosure - Section 9(1) provided that "A composite assessment review board must not hear any matter in support of an issue that is not identified on the complaint form." - The Municipality argued, inter alia, that CARB's task was to determine the correct assessment, not to quash bad assessments - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Even accepting the Municipality's argument that the CARB enjoys very little leeway in applying the regulations and guidelines in this case, I am not satisfied that the manner and consistency of application of the regulations and guidelines to other taxpayers is irrelevant to the CARB's task. Further, inequitable treatment may be relevant to an assessment of costs under s. 52 and Schedule 2 MRAC. Therefore, I find that the CARB unreasonably concluded in this case that it could not hear any evidence on that issue pursuant to s. 9 MRAC. I further find that this error is not a mere defect in form or a technical irregularity, and it is premature to say whether any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, given the fact that this is an appeal of an interlocutory ruling." - See paragraphs 51 to 53, 59 to 64 and 70.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5502

Valuation - Evidence and proof - Production of relevant evidence - [See second Real Property Tax - Topic 5268 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 5506

Valuation - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See third Real Property Tax - Topic 7003 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act, challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the question, inter alia, of whether CARB had erred in finding that the Municipality had complied with CNRL's s. 299 request to see or receive sufficient information to show how the assessor had prepared its property assessment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review with respect to the question was reasonableness and CARB's decision on this issue was reasonable - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act, challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the question, inter alia, of whether CARB erred in finding that CNRL failed to raise equity as an issue in its Complaint Form and was therefore precluded from raising it in the hearing on the merits - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the appropriate standard of review to be applied to this issue was reasonableness - CARB was interpreting and applying a provision in its home legislative regime - This complaint process was specific to assessment reviews and involved consideration of the particular interests at play in these types of reviews - Despite CARB's reference to jurisdiction, this was not a true jurisdictional question attracting the correctness standard - See paragraphs 54 to 58.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - CNRL sought leave to appeal under s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), challenging two preliminary decisions of a Municipal Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) - Sulyma, J., granted leave on the question, inter alia, of whether CARB erred in finding that each party bore the onus to prove the included cost amount they believed was correct - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this issue involved the interpretation of s. 467(1) of the MGA, CARB's home statute - The answer might guide CARB in certain procedural decisions, such as those relating to disclosure - The issue was specific to CARB's administrative regime, especially given the fact that CARB was not bound by the rules of evidence or any other law applicable to court proceedings - Therefore, the decision was reviewed on the reasonableness standard - CARB's decision that in the circumstances each party bore an onus to provide sufficient proof for CARB to either make the requested change to the assessment roll or decide that no change was required was within the range of acceptable and defensible solutions - CARB conceded that the evidential burden might shift where the party made out a prima facie case - Its decision was generally in keeping with the common law as stated by CNRL - See paragraphs 71 to 88.

Cases Noticed:

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 169; 312 W.A.C. 169; 2003 ABCA 279, consd. [para. 14].

Martselos et al. v. Poitras et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. A16; 2008 FC 1413, refd to. [para. 14].

Bear Hills Charitable Foundation et al. v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.) (2008), 463 A.R. 276; 2008 ABQB 766, refd to. [para. 14].

A.D.M. v. Canadian Institute of Actuaries (2008), 467 A.R. 263; 71 C.C.P.B. 252; 2008 ABQB 522, refd to. [para. 14].

Associated Developers Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2011), 527 A.R. 287; 50 Alta. L.R.(5th) 219; 2011 ABQB 592, appld. [para. 40].

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, refd to. [para. 40].

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 347; 433 W.A.C. 347; 2008 ABCA 220, leave to appeal denied (2008), 392 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 46].

Strathcona No. 20 (County) v. Assessment Appeal Board (Alta.) and Shell Canada Ltd. (1995), 165 A.R. 300; 89 W.A.C. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Mountain View (County) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., [2001] 2 W.W.R. 398; 272 A.R. 123; 2000 ABQB 594, refd to. [para. 59].

Royal Montreal Golf Club v. Dorval, [1946] 1 D.L.R. 50 (Que. Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

Progress Energy, Re, [2003] AMGBO No. 169; MGB 133/03, refd to. [para. 62].

GT Group Telecom v. Alberta (Municipal Affairs), [2004] AMGBO No. 227; MGB 117/04, refd to. [para. 62].

Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton (Composite Assessment Review Board) et al. (2012), 534 A.R. 212; 2012 ABQB 154, refd to. [para. 63].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 80].

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. 81].

Arnold v. Canada, 2005 DTC 1699; 2005 TCC 725, refd to. [para. 81].

Sommers v. Edmonton (City) and Scott (1976), 10 A.R. 74; 72 D.L.R.(3d) 370 (S.C.), affd. (1978), 10 A.R. 48; 6 M.P.L.R. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Edmonton (City) v. Army & Navy Department Stores Ltd, [2002] AMGBO No. 126; MGB 112/02, refd to. [para. 82].

Ag Pro Grain Management Services Ltd. et al. v. Lacombe (County) et al. (2006), 402 A.R. 199; 2006 ABQB 351, refd to. [para. 82].

Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton (Composite Assessment Review Board) et al. (2012), 534 A.R. 212; 2012 ABQB 154, refd to. [para. 84].

Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd. v. Lacombe (County), [2004] AMGBO No. 232; MGB 122/04, refd to. [para. 85].

BP Energy Canada v. Woodlands (County), [2005] AMGBO No. 207; MGB 086/05, refd to. [para. 85].

Edmonton (City) v. Army & Navy Department Stores Ltd., [2002] AMGBO No. 126; MGB 112/02, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation - see Municipal Government Act Regulations, Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation.

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 299 [para. 26].

Municipal Government Act Regulations, Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation, AR 310/99, sect. 8(2) [para. 28]; sect. 9(4) [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 57 to 59, 63 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Gilbert J. Ludwig and James B. Laycraft Q.C. (Wilson Laycraft), for Canadian Natural Resources Limited;

Carol Zukiwski and Cherisse N. Killick-Dzenick (Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer LLP), for the respondent, Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo;

Gwendolyn Stewart-Palmer (Shores Jardine LLP), for the respondent, Wood Buffalo Composite Assessment Review Board;

Cameron J. Ashmore and Tanya Smith (City of Edmonton-Law Branch), for the Intervenor, the City of Edmonton.

This application was heard on January 23 and 24, 2013, by Verville, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following decision on February 6, 2013.