JT Tax Consulting Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al., 2011 ABQB 503

• Judge: McCarthy, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 21, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABQB 503;(2011), 523 A.R. 263 (QB)

JT Tax Consulting Ltd. v. Calgary (2011), 523 A.R. 263 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AU.054

JT Tax Consulting Ltd. on behalf of Precision Drilling Corporation (applicant) v. The City of Calgary and the Assessment Review Board for the City of Calgary and the Minister of Justice, Attorney General for Alberta (respondents)

(1101 02538; 2011 ABQB 503)

Indexed As: JT Tax Consulting Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McCarthy, J.

August 9, 2011.

Summary:

Precision Drilling Corporation owned two warehouses in southeast Calgary. JT Tax Consulting Ltd., on behalf of Precision, disputed the values at which those properties were assessed by the City of Calgary for 2010. The Assessment Review Board for the City of Calgary confirmed the original assessments. JT Tax applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - Precision Drilling Corporation owned two warehouses in southeast Calgary - JT Tax Consulting Ltd., on behalf of Precision, disputed the values at which those properties were assessed by the City of Calgary for 2010 - The Assessment Review Board for the City of Calgary confirmed the original assessments - JT Tax applied for judicial review - Pursuant to s. 470 of the Municipal Government Act, an appeal was available to the Court of Queen's Bench, with leave, on a question of law or jurisdiction - At issue was whether judicial review was precluded - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - In appropriate circumstances, judicial review was available in respect of decisions of the Board notwithstanding the statutory right of appeal - In this case, however, the issues raised by JT Tax were questions of law for which the appeal was an adequate alternative remedy and there were no extraordinary circumstances which justified granting judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of adequate alternative remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 7].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 7].

BP Canada Energy Co. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2003), 356 A.R. 363; 2003 ABQB 875, affd. (2004), 346 A.R. 147; 320 W.A.C. 147; 2004 ABCA 32, refd to. [para. 8].

Buckley et al. v. Entz Estate et al. (2007), 401 A.R. 231; 391 W.A.C. 231; 2007 ABCA 7, leave to appeal refused (2007), 376 N.R. 395; 440 A.R. 398; 438 W.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Milner Power Inc. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2007), 417 A.R. 115; 410 W.A.C. 115; 80 Alta. L.R.(4th) 35; 2007 ABCA 265, refd to. [para. 10].

Foster v. Transportation and Safety Board (Alta.) (2006), 397 A.R. 82; 384 W.A.C. 82; 2006 ABCA 282, refd to. [para. 13].

Merchant v. Law Society of Alberta (2008), 440 A.R. 377; 438 W.A.C. 377; 2008 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 15].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 19].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 29].

Pacific Logging Co. v. British Columbia, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 623; 16 N.R. 513, refd to. [para. 29].

Sommers v. Edmonton (City) and Scott (1978), 10 A.R. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Barron v. Foothills No. 31 and Alberta (1984), 57 A.R. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) et al. (2006), 376 A.R. 44; 360 W.A.C. 44; 263 D.L.R.(4th) 725; 2006 ABCA 9, leave to appeal denied (2006), 359 N.R. 393; 412 A.R. 394; 404 W.A.C. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

G. Ludwig (Wilson Laycraft), for the applicant, JT Tax Consulting Ltd.;

P. Frank (City of Calgary Law Department), for the respondent, The City of Calgary;

P. Knoll, Q.C. (University of Calgary Faculty of Law), for the respondent, The Assessment Review Board.

This application was heard on July 21, 2011, by McCarthy, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on August 9, 2011.