Niagara Falls (City) v. Lundy's Lane Portfolio Inc., (2010) 271 O.A.C. 198 (DC)

• Judge: Turnbull, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 15, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2010), 271 O.A.C. 198 (DC);2010 ONSC 3495

Niagara Falls v. Lundy's Lane Portfolio (2010), 271 O.A.C. 198 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.077

In The Matter Of Section 43.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S. 1990, c. A.31;

And In The Matter Of Sections 359(1) and 359.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as Amended;

And In The Matter Of an Appeal with respect to taxation year 2005 on premises known municipally as 7500 Lundy's Lane, Roll No. 2725-090-007-29000-0000;

And In The Matter Of an intended appeal of the Amended Decision of the Assessment Review ARB, issued the 12th day of February, 2010 in ARB File No. WR77017A.

The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls (applicant) v. Lundy's Lane Portfolio Inc. (respondent)

(DC-10-0200 (ML); 2010 ONSC 3495)

Indexed As: Niagara Falls (City) v. Lundy's Lane Portfolio Inc.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Turnbull, J.

June 16, 2010.

Summary:

The Assessment Review Board made a decision pursuant to s. 359.1 of the Municipal Act (Ont.) in favour of a taxpayer. The municipality moved under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act (Ont.) for leave to appeal.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Turnbull, J., dismissed the motion.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7008

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - General principles - When available - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 7164 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7164

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - Applications or appeals to the courts - Jurisdiction or nature of appeal - The Assessment Review Board made a decision pursuant to s. 359.1 of the Municipal Act (Ont.) in favour of a taxpayer - The municipality moved under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act (Ont.) for leave to appeal - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Turnbull, J., dismissed the motion, where the court did not have jurisdiction to hear it since (a) there was no specific right of appeal granted to the aggrieved party under s. 359.1 of the Municipal Act, and (b) in particular, s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act was not incorporated into s. 359.1 of the Municipal Act - The decision of the legislature to not specifically incorporate s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act into ss. 359 and 359.1 of the Municipal Act was consistent with the legislature's intention to limit such redress to those sections where it was specifically included - See paragraphs 1 to 33.

Statutes - Topic 2617

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Harmonization of statutes (incl. presumption of coherence) - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Turnbull, J., held as follows: "There is a presumption of coherence which is applicable to statutory enactments which entitles the court to assume that the Legislature did not intend to enact contradictory remedies" - See paragraphs 24 and 25.

Cases Noticed:

Marche et al. v. Halifax Insurance Co., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 47; 330 N.R. 115; 230 N.S.R.(2d) 333; 729 A.P.R. 333, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd. (2001), 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63, consd. [para. 11].

Stone v. Woodstock (Town) (2006), 302 N.B.R.(2d) 165; 784 A.P.R. 165 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City) (1990), 36 O.A.C. 384; 71 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 593; 129 N.R. 227; 50 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Guardian Realty Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Toronto (City), [1934] 2 D.L.R. 721 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Maclean v. Dabbs et al. - see Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada.

Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1998), 113 O.A.C. 307; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 482 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-31, sect. 43.1 [para. 1].

Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, sect. 359.1 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Flood, Colleen, and Sossin, Lorne, Administrative Law in Context (2008), pp. 61, 213 [para. 10, footnote 1].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 177, 179 to 181 [para. 12]; 223 [para. 24]; 361 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Andrew J. Larmand, for the applicant;

Francy B. Kussner, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on June 15, 2010, by Turnbull, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following decision on June 16, 2010.