Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Wood Buffalo (Regional Municipality) et al., 2011 ABQB 220

• Judge: Martin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABQB 220;(2011), 516 A.R. 51 (QB)

Cdn. Natural Resources v. Wood Buffalo (2011), 516 A.R. 51 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AP.017

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; 2011 ABQB 220)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Ft. McMurray

Martin, J.

April 1, 2011.

Summary:

The applicant Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) disputed the respondent Municipality's amended assessment of its business equipment and machinery for tax purposes. CNRL appealed the assessment to the appropriate administrative tribunal. A three week hearing was scheduled to deal with the merits of the appeal. The tribunal had rendered four preliminary decisions. CNRL challenged two of those decisions by way of originating notice. CNRL applied for a stay of proceedings. It asked to be permitted to impugn the two preliminary decisions in the courts without the tribunal first hearing the challenge to the amended assessment on its merits.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this was one of those rare and exceptional circumstances in which interim relief should be granted before the tribunal had completed its designated task. The court granted the application where the test for a stay was met.

Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending - The applicant, CNRL, disputed the respondent Municipality's amended assessment of its business equipment and machinery for tax purposes - CNRL appealed the assessment to the appropriate administrative tribunal - A three week hearing was scheduled to deal with the merits of the appeal - The tribunal had rendered four preliminary decisions - CNRL challenged two of those decisions by way of originating notice and applied for a stay of proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this was one of those rare and exceptional circumstances in which interim relief should be granted before the tribunal had completed its designated task - The court granted the application where the test for a stay was met - The tribunal had refused jurisdiction over equity on the basis that it lacked power to reconsider its rulings - The refusal of jurisdiction over equity was not only a serious issue, it was sufficiently clear to support interlocutory review - Second, the unrecoverable costs of processes that might be unnecessary or even potentially unfair, as well as the loss of the use of any funds that had been overpaid, qualified as irreparable harm - Finally, the balance of convenience favoured a new hearing - If the tribunal had made a reversible error in declining jurisdiction over equity, there was no good reason to insist that it conduct and conclude a hearing constructed on a faulty pillar - A finding that the tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction after a final decision was reached could potentially trigger a rehearing, with new rounds of disclosure, new witnesses, recalling of witnesses previously heard, and presentation of new arguments - All parties were prejudiced when they did not know at the outset of the hearing the scope and nature of the evidence to be heard - See paragraphs 21 to 78.

Administrative Law - Topic 3283

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Grounds - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3290

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Balance of convenience - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3291

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Irreparable harm - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3345

Judicial review - General - Practice - Affidavit evidence - The applicant, CNRL, disputed the respondent Municipality's amended assessment of its business equipment and machinery for tax purposes - CNRL appealed the assessment to the appropriate administrative tribunal - A three week hearing was scheduled to deal with the merits of the appeal - The tribunal had rendered four preliminary decisions - CNRL challenged two of those decisions by way of originating notice - CNRL applied for a stay of proceedings - It asked to be permitted to impugn the two preliminary decisions in the courts without the tribunal first hearing the challenge to the amended assessment on its merits - The evidence on the stay application included the affidavit of Minter and the return - The Municipality argued in its brief that Minter's affidavit was not admissible in its entirety as it improperly sought to supplement or supplant the return in a judicial review application - In oral argument, counsel only challenged parts of the affidavit - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that Minter's affidavit was not directed solely towards the record or the reasons for or merits of the decision - Instead, the thrust of Minter's testimony addressed the issue of whether CNRL would suffer irreparable harm if the requested stay was not granted - As the failure to submit evidence of irreparable harm could prove fatal to a stay application, Minter's evidence was necessary, relevant and admissible - However, certain exhibits to the affidavit also formed part of the return and comments made about the tribunal's decisions and other matters outside the scope of his knowledge attracted little or no probative value - See paragraphs 18 to 20.

Administrative Law - Topic 3357

Judicial review - General - Practice - Interlocutory proceedings (incl. applications to strike) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9117

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of interlocutory orders - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3214.1 ].

Practice - Topic 3679

Evidence - Affidavits - Use of - Affidavits - Evidence - Admissibility - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3345 ].

Cases Noticed:

McClary v. Geophysical Services Inc. et al. (2011), 506 A.R. 302 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 20].

TNL Industrial Contractors Ltd. et al. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424 et al. (1998), 225 A.R. 245 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 20].

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 et al. v. Westfair Foods Ltd. et al. (2010), 477 A.R. 315; 483 W.A.C. 315 (C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

B.G. v. Director of Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 164 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 20].

Czerwinski et al. v. Mulaner et al. (2007), 443 A.R. 125 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 20].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, appld. [para. 21].

Longley et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 223 O.A.C. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

EnCana Corp. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) - see Paramount Energy Operating Corp. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.).

Paramount Energy Operating Corp. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2004), 354 A.R. 375; 329 W.A.C. 375; 2004 CarswellAlta 1145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Greater Moncton International Airport Authority v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al., [2008] N.R. Uned. 19; 2008 FCA 68, refd to. [para. 28].

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 199; 433 W.A.C. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Royal Montréal Golf Club v. Dorval, [1946] 1 D.L.R. 50 (Que. Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

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. 40].

Fullowka v. Whitford (1996), 147 D.L.R.(4th) 531 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para 52].

Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1992), 59 F.T.R. 81; 1992 CarswellNat 705 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

S.F. v. Ontario (Director of Income Maintenance, Ministry of Community & Social Services) - see Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al.

Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 100; 2000 CarswellOnt 2537 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Superintendent of Bankruptcy v. MacLeod et al. (2010), 402 N.R. 341; 2010 CarswellNat 680 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Muskwachees Ambulance Authority Ltd. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3197 et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 630 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

Island Telephone Co., Re (1987), 67 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 158; 206 A.P.R. 158 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 74].

Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Services - see Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al.

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 169; 312 W.A.C. 169; 2003 ABCA 279, refd to. [para. 76].

Counsel:

Gilbert J. Ludwig, for the applicant;

Carol M. Zukiwski, for the respondent, The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo;

Gwendolyn J. Stewart-Palmer, for the respondent, The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Composite Assessment Review Board.

This application was heard on March 25, 2011, by Martin, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Ft. McMurray, who delivered the following decision on April 1, 2011.