Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton (Assessment Review Board) et al., 2012 ABQB 399

• Judge: Hillier, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 399;(2012), 541 A.R. 377 (QB)

Edmonton v. Assessment Review Bd. (2012), 541 A.R. 377 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. JN.108

The City of Edmonton (applicant) v. The City of Edmonton Assessment Review Board and Stephen Richard Wood (respondents)

(1103 09983; 2012 ABQB 399)

Indexed As: Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton (Assessment Review Board) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Hillier, J.

June 15, 2012.

Summary:

A property owner filed a complaint with the Edmonton Assessment Review Board, challenging the assessed value of his property. The complaint was mailed on March 9, but not received until March 21. The deadline for receipt was March 14. There was no evidence to support any inference of delay other than postal delay. The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction, as the owner intended to file a complaint before the deadline and the failure to do so was the result of circumstances beyond his control. The City sought judicial review, claiming that the Board erred in taking jurisdiction where the complaint was received five days after the deadline and nothing in the Municipal Government Act empowered the Board to extend that deadline.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The Board had no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing of the complaint in the face of s. 467(2) of the Act, which provided that the Board "must dismiss a complaint that was not made within the proper time". Accordingly, the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.

Administrative Law - Topic 8843

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status - To appear before the courts when its decisions are under judicial review - A property owner, challenging the assessed value of his property, filed his complaint with the Assessment Review Board five days after the filing deadline - The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction notwithstanding the deadline, because the owner intended to file his complaint before the deadline and the late filing was due to circumstances beyond his control (postal delay) - The City sought judicial review, arguing that the Board had no jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the role of the Board at the judicial review hearing - See paragraphs 19 to 20.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7003

Assessment appeals - General principles - Scope of appeal or standard of review - A property owner filed a complaint appealing his property assessment - It was received five days after the 60 day deadline expired - Section 467(2) of the Municipal Government Act provided that the Assessment Review Board "must dismiss a complaint that was not made within the proper time" - The Board, in a preliminary ruling, held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint (effectively extending the deadline) - The City sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the issue here deals with interpretation of legislative time limits and whether the ARB has been granted authority to exercise a discretion ... This is a question of law. ... Arguably, it remains a 'true' question of jurisdiction as affecting legislative deadlines. However ... interpretation of a statutory provision having a jurisdictional flavour does not automatically trigger a correctness standard of review. In all of the circumstances here, it is prudent to apply reasonableness as the appropriate standard of review." - See paragraphs 26 to 40.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7105

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - Provincially or municipally appointed tribunal or board - Jurisdiction - General - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7309 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7309

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - Notice of appeal, application or complaint - Time for service of - Extension of - A property owner filed a complaint with the Edmonton Assessment Review Board, challenging the assessed value of his property - The complaint was mailed on March 9, but not received until March 21 - The deadline for receipt was March 14 - There was no evidence to support any inference of delay other than postal delay - The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction, as the owner intended to file a complaint before the deadline and the failure to do so was the result of circumstances beyond his control - The City sought judicial review, claiming that the Board erred in taking jurisdiction where the complaint was received five days after the deadline and nothing in the Municipal Government Act empowered the Board to extend that deadline - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, applying the reasonableness standard of review, allowed the application - The Board had no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing of the complaint in the face of s. 467(2) of the Act, which provided that the Board "must dismiss a complaint that was not made within the proper time" - The Board's decision was unreasonable - The court stated that "even assuming the ARB might extend a deadline for reasons of natural justice in very exceptional cases, it unreasonably concluded that the circumstances in this case were beyond [the owner's] control so as to provide the ARB with discretion not to dismiss the complaint" - Accordingly, the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.

Cases Noticed:

Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 110; 517 W.A.C. 110; 2011 ABCA 94, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 27].

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 347; 433 W.A.C. 347; 2008 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 29].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 32].

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al. (2012), 428 N.R. 107; 316 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1002 A.P.R. 1; 2012 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 33].

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. 33].

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678; 391 N.R. 234; 253 O.A.C. 256; 2009 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 34].

Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. - see Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al.

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 37].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 40].

Lethbridge (City) et al. v. Daisley et al. (2000), 250 A.R. 365; 213 W.A.C. 365; 2000 ABCA 79, leave to appeal refused (2000), 268 N.R. 200; 293 A.R. 189; 257 W.A.C. 189 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Calgary (City) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 353 A.R. 332; 2004 ABQB 85, refd to. [para. 67].

Switzer's Investments Ltd. v. Calgary (City), [1999] A.J. No. 1662 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 67].

Bowen v. Edmonton (City) (1977), 3 A.R. 63; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Samedan Oil of Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer) (1993), 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton (Composite Assessment Review Board) et al. (2012), 534 A.R. 212; 2012 ABQB 154, refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 309(1)(c) [para. 23]; sect. 461, sect. 467(2) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Tanya Smith, for the applicant;

Darin S. McKinley, for the respondent;

Stephen Richard Wood, self-represented.

This application was heard on May 24, 2012, before Hillier, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 15, 2012.