Ontario Home Builders' Association et al. v. Board of Education of York Region et al., (1996) 93 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 93 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

Home Builders v. York School Bd. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Ontario Home Builders' Association, Humber Green Estates Ltd. and Butternut Grove Homes Inc. (appellants) v. The York Board of Education, The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board and The Attorney General for Ontario (respondents) and The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Ontario Public School Boards' Association, The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, Carlota Guzman, Tony Ciccone, Charlotte Pope and Doris Seto (interveners)

(24085)

Indexed As: Ontario Home Builders' Association et al. v. Board of Education of York Region et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

August 22, 1996.

Summary:

The Development Charges Act (Ont.), Part III, set out a scheme for school boards to raise funds for capital expenditures for new schools by imposing development charges on new residential and commercial develop­ments. The York Region Board of Education and the York Region Roman Catholic Sep­arate School Board (the School Boards) passed bylaws pursuant to Part III of the Act which required persons seeking building permits to pay Educational Development Charges (EDCs) as a condition of obtaining a permit. The Ontario Home Builders' Asso­ciation and two developers applied for judi­cial review to quash the bylaws, challenging the constitutional validity of the EDC scheme.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 62 O.A.C. 321, allowed the application and quashed the bylaws. The School Boards and the Attorney General for Ontario appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 69 O.A.C. 216, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Divisional Court and dismissed the original judicial review application. The Ontario Home Builders' Association and the two developers ap­pealed. Other interested parties intervened.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Cory and Major, JJ., concurring), assumed, without deciding, that the appel­lants had standing and held: (1) that Part III of the Development Charges Act authorized the imposition of an indirect tax contrary to s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867; how­ever, the EDC scheme was intra vires the Province of Ontario as ancillary to a valid regulatory scheme of land use planning pursuant to ss. 92(9) (licensing power), 92(13) (property and civil rights) and 92(16) (matters of a local nature) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1867; (2) that the EDC scheme did not prejudicially affect a right or privilege with respect to denominational schools contrary to s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867; and (3) that the EDC scheme was immune from Charter scrutiny. La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), agreed with the majority's reasons as they pertained to s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Charter, and agreed that the EDC's were intra vires the province. The minority disagreed, however, that the EDC scheme was a valid regulatory charge under the combined operation of ss. 92(9), 92(13) and 92(16). Rather the minor­ity opined that the scheme was valid as direct taxation within the province under s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Civil Rights - Topic 392

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Separate schools - Tax­ation - Two school boards passed bylaws im­posing education development charges (EDCs) on new residential and commercial developments under Part III of the Devel­opment Charges Act (Ont.) - An interested individual argued that the EDC scheme violated her rights to equality and religious freedom under ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter because EDCs could be levied by Roman Catholic Separate School Boards on all new homes, whereas sup­porters of other religions could not impose EDCs - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the development charges legislation was immune from Charter scrutiny because the legislation pursued the constitutionally required ob­jective of providing separate schools with funding that was on par with public school funding as required by s. 93 of the Consti­tution Act, 1867 - See para­graphs 76, 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 394

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Schools - Taxation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5671.1

Equality and protection of the law - Schools - Taxation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8349

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Guaranteed rights of denominational schools - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Relationship between Charter rights and other Constitution pro­visions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 28 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 28

General principles - Raising constitutional issues - Standing - The Development Charges Act (Ont.) authorized school boards to impose education development charges on new residential and commercial developments - A builders' association and two developers (the appellants) pursued a constitutional challenge under, inter alia, s. 93(1) (the denominational schools provi­sion) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Standing became an issue - Four indi­viduals, the "standing intervenors", argued that if the appellants lacked standing on the s. 93 and Charter issues, they them­selves had standing to raise these grounds - The Supreme Court of Canada assumed, without deciding, that the appellants had standing - The court opined, however, that the intervenors lacked standing, stating that "... this court takes an unfavourable view of attempts to back up an appellant's lack of standing by way of interveners. Such efforts to bootstrap flawed standing are to be dis­couraged" - See paragraphs 29 to 33, 78.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6822

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(2)) - Direct taxation within the province - What constitutes a tax - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(2)) - Direct taxation within the province - What constitutes indirect taxation - Two school boards passed bylaws imposing education devel­opment charges (EDCs) on new resi­dential and commercial developments pursuant to Part III of the Development Charges Act (Ont.) - A builders' associ­ation and two developers challenged the constitutional validity of the EDC scheme - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Part III of the Act auth­orized the imposi­tion of an indirect tax contrary to s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - How­ever, the EDC scheme was intra vires the Prov­ince of Ontario as ancillary to a valid regula­tory scheme for the provi­sion of provincial educational facilities as a com­ponent of land use planning pursuant to ss. 92(9) (licensing power), 92(13) (property and civil rights) and 92(16) (matters of a local nature) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1867 - See para­graphs 34 to 67.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7004

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(9)) - Licences - Indirect taxation through licence fees - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7227

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(13)) - Prop­erty and civil rights - Land - Land use planning - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7518

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(16)) - Mat­ters of local or private nature - Land use planning - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9542

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Extent of constitutional guaran­tees under s. 93, Constitution Act, 1867 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 and first Constitutional Law - Topic 9551 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9551

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Regulation - Valid provincial legislation - Two school boards passed bylaws imposing education development charges (EDCs) on new residential and commercial developments pursuant to Part III of the Development Charges Act (Ont.) - A builders' association and two devel­opers alleged that the charges were con­trary to s. 93(1) (the denominational schools provision) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the EDC scheme prejudi­cially affected the rights of separate school supporters: (a) to a proportionate share of all public monies, apart from local assess­ments; and (b) to be exempt from paying assessments for public school purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the EDC scheme did not prejudicially affect the rights guaranteed by s. 93(1) - See paragraphs 68 to 75.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9551

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Regulation - Valid provincial legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 ].

Education - Topic 716

Education authorities - School boards - Education development charges - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 , Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 and first Constitu­tional Law - Topic 9551 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 2141

Municipal taxation or levies - Develop­ment charges - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 392 , Constitutional Law - Topic 6822.1 and first Constitutional Law - Topic 9551 ].

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing - Intervenors - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 28 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 18, refd to. [para. 11].

Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.) - see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.

Education Act Amendment Act (Ont.) Reference, Re - see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.

Halifax (City) v. Estate of J.P. Fairbanks, [1928] A.C. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 12, 127].

Greater Hull School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 575; 56 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 13].

Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Prod­ucts Board, [1938] A.C. 708 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 15, 102].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Madger (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

Allard Contractors Ltd. et al. v. Coquitlam (District) et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 371; 160 N.R. 249; 35 B.C.A.C. 241; 57 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 20, 98].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, dist. [para. 31].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, dist. [para. 32].

Atlantic Smoke Shops Ltd. v. Conlon, [1943] A.C. 550 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 34, 143].

Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Ltd. v. Saskatchewan et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 545; 18 N.R. 107, refd to. [paras. 36, 127].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1952] 2 S.C.R. 231, refd to. [paras. 40, 130].

Simpsons-Sears Ltd. v. New Brunswick and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 144; 41 N.R. 489; 39 N.B.R.(2d) 407; 103 A.P.R. 407, refd to. [para. 40].

Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (1887), 12 App. Cas. 575 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 41, 112].

Brewers and Maltsters' Association of Ontario v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1897] A.C. 231, refd to. [para. 41].

Cairns Construction Ltd. v. Saskatchewan, [1960] S.C.R. 619, refd to. [para. 41].

Montreal (City) v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [1923] A.C. 136, refd to. [para. 46].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co., [1950] A.C. 87 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Rattenbury v. Land Settlement Board, [1929] S.C.R. 52, refd to. [paras. 46, 130].

Reference Re Validity of Section 31 of the Municipal District Amendment Act, 1941, [1943] S.C.R. 295, refd to. [para. 46].

Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, [1932] 4 D.L.R. 750 (Alta C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Bratt's Lake (Rural Municipality) v. Hud­son's Bay Co., [1918] 2 W.W.R. 962, refd to. [para. 46].

Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board v. Mississauga (City), [1994] O.M.B.D. No. 1093, refd to. [para. 58].

Mills (Erin) Development Corp. v. Peel Board of Education (1988), 22 O.M.B.R. 177, refd to. [para. 62].

Etobicoke Board of Education v. High bury Developments Ltd., [1958] S.C.R. 196, refd to. [para. 62].

Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal et al. v. Quebec (Procureur général) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 377; 92 N.R. 327; 20 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 72].

Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 511; 154 N.R. 1; 56 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

Reference Re Education Act, S.Q. 1988, c. 84 - see Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84.

Scott v. Ottawa (City) (1856), 13 U.C.Q.B. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Attorney General) (Unemployment Insurance Reference), [1937] A.C. 355 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

Unemployment Insurance Reference - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Attorney General).

Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit and Veg­etable Committee, [1931] S.C.R. 357, refd to. [para. 95].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Reed (1884), 10 App. Cas. 141 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 100].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 100].

Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy Ltd., [1933] A.C. 168 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act (1970), Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 102].

Reference Re Agricultural Products Mar­keting Act - see Agricultural Products Marketing Act (1970), Re.

Ontario Boys' Wear Ltd. v. The Advisory Committee, [1944] S.C.R. 349, refd to. [para. 104].

Tolton Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Standards Advisory Committee (Ont.) - see Ontario Boys' Wear Ltd. v. The Advisory Committee.

Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 105].

Coquitlam (District) v. LaFarge Concrete Ltd., [1973] 1 W.W.R. 681 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1924] A.C. 222, refd to. [para. 112].

Canada (Attorney General) v. British Co­lumbia (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 111, refd to. [para. 112].

Insurance Act of Canada, Re - see Refer­ence Re Insurance Act.

Reference Re Insurance Act, [1932] A.C. 41 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 112].

Alberta Natural Gas Tax Reference, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1004; 42 N.R. 361; 37 A.R. 541, refd to. [para. 113].

Reference Re Exported Natural Gas Tax - see Alberta Natural Gas Tax Reference.

Exported Natural Gas Tax Reference - see Alberta Natural Gas Tax Reference.

Natural Gas Tax Reference - see Alberta Natural Gas Tax Reference.

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 117].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co., [1949] A.C. 600, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Churchill (1972), 29 D.L.R.(3d) 368 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

Texada Mines Ltd. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1960] S.C.R. 713, refd to. [para. 133].

Renvoi relatif à la taxe de vente du Qué­bec, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 715; 169 N.R. 1; 62 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 136].

Reference Re Quebec Sales Tax - see Renvoi relatif à la taxe de vente du Québec.

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Queen In­surance Co. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 1090, refd to. [para. 141].

Cotton v. R., [1914] A.C. 176 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 142].

Alleyn v. Barthe, [1922] 1 A.C. 215, refd to. [para. 143].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 145].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 145].

Ellet's Estate v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General) et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 466; 32 N.R. 326, refd to. [para. 145].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada Trust Co. - see Ellet's Estate v. British Columbia (Attorney General).

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(a), sect. 15(1) [para. 9].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(2), sect. 92(9), sect. 92(13), sect. 92(16), sect. 93(1) [para. 9].

Development Charges Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D-9, sect. 30(1), sect. 30(3), sect. 35 [para. 9], Part III [para. 1 et seq.].

Development Charges Act Regulations (Ont.), Education Development Charges Regulations, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 268, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 9]; sect. 5 [para. 56].

Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-2, sect. 122(1) [para. 9]; sect. 170, sect. 171(1), sect. 195 [para. 25].

Education Act Regulations (Ont.), General Legislative Grants Regulation, O. Reg. 119/92, sect. 6(1) [para. 8]; sect. 51 [para. 25].

Education Development Charges Regula­tions - see Development Charges Act Regulations (Ont.).

General Legislative Grants Regulation - see Education Act Regulations (Ont.).

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-13, sect. 2(i), sect. 51(24)(a), sect. 51(24)(j) [para. 28].

Roman Catholics in Upper Canada, An Act to Restore Certain Rights in respect of Separate Schools (Scott Act) (1863), 26 Vict. c. 5, sect. 14, sect. 20 [para. 9].

Scott Act - see Roman Catholics in Upper Canada, An Act to Restore Certain Rights in respect of Separate Schools to.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Ed. 1995) [para. 133].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. (Looseleaf Supp.) 1992), §30.2(6) [para. 38], pp. 413, 414 [para. 145].

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed. 1977), vol. 2 [para. 75].

La Forest, Gerard V., The Allocation of Taxing Power Under the Canadian Con­stitution (2nd Ed. 1981), pp. 2, 3, 4 [para. 37]; 79 [para. 42]; 86 [para. 49]; 89 [para. 144]; 90 [paras. 12, 144]; 94 [para. 137]; 111, 112, 113 [para. 39]; 155, 156 [para. 52]; 159, 160 [para. 122]; 195 [para. 96].

Laskin, Bora, Provincial Marketing Levies: Indirect Taxation and Federal Power (1959-60), U. of T. L.J. 1, p. 4 et seq. [para. 102].

Magnet, Joseph Elito, The Constitutional Distribution of Taxation Powers in Canada (1978), 10 Ottawa L.R. 473, p. 533 [para. 135].

Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy (1893), Book V, ch. 3, p. 419, §1 [paras. 35, 96, 141].

Counsel:

Neil Finkelstein and Monica Kowal, for the appellants;

Peter D. Lauwers, Janet E. Minor, Michel Y. Hélie and Martha M. MacKinnon, for the respondents;

Monique Rousseau, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

George H. Copley, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Colin L. Campbell, Q.C., and Gordon F. Willcocks, for the intervener, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association;

Peter D. Lauwers, for the intervener, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Asso­ciation;

George Vegh, for the interveners, Carlota Guzman and Tony Ciccone;

Jane Thompson and Robert Maxwell, for the interveners, Charlotte Pope and Doris Seto.

Solicitors of Record:

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

The Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association;

Holden, Day, Wilson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, Carlota Guzman and Tony Ciccone;

Gardiner, Roberts, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, Charlotte Pope and Doris Seto.

This appeal was heard on October 10 and 11, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on August 22, 1996, including the following opinions:

Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 86;

La Forest (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 87 to 147.