QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), (1983) 48 A.R. 255 (QB)

• Judge: Stratton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 19, 1983
• Citations: (1983), 48 A.R. 255 (QB)

QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (1983), 48 A.R. 255 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton, City of

(No. 114314, 113788, 94036)

Indexed As: QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Stratton, J.

August 19, 1983.

Summary:

A cablevision company entered into an agreement with the City of Edmonton. The agreement provided for a "special franchise charge". The company applied for a declaration that it was not legally liable to pay the franchise charge. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the company was liable to pay the franchise charge of $426,174.00.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters in issue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to apply a plea of res judicata where the question in the prior proceeding was not the same question sought to be controverted by the plea of res judicata (see paragraphs 24 to 32).

Municipal Law - Topic 1402

Powers of municipalities - Source of powers - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the powers, express and implied, possessed by a municipal corporation (see paragraph 40).

Municipal Law - Topic 1448

Powers of municipalities - Implied powers, power to impose fees or charges - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the power to impose a special franchise charge (in an agreement with a cablevision operator) is fairly implied in the express powers granted to a municipality under the Municipal Government Act and the Municipal Telephone Act (see paragraph 47).

Municipal Law - Topic 1483

Powers of a municipality - Imposition of taxes - What constitutes a tax - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a franchise charge (in an agreement between the City of Edmonton and a cablevision operator) was not a tax because it was not compulsory and because it was not imposed by statute (see paragraph 58).

Municipal Law - Topic 1498

Powers of municipalities - Agreements with special franchise holders - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that s. 17(7) of the Municipal Government Act (which authorized agreements with special franchise holders) was not exhaustive of the types of agreements that a municipality is authorized to enter into with special franchise holders relating to charges levied against the franchise holder by a municipality (see paragraphs 33 to 39).

Interest - Topic 5302

Interest as damages - Interest on payment of money or debt withheld - Improper withholding, what constitutes - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the failure of a cablevision operator to pay a franchise fee to the City of Edmonton was not an improper withholding for purposes of s. 15 of the Judicature Act - The court stated that the president of the cablevision company had a bona fide belief that the company did not owe the franchise fee (see paragraphs 61 to 68).

Words and Phrases

Tax - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of the word "tax" for purposes of taxation by a municipality (see paragraphs 49 to 58).

Cases Noticed:

Angle v. M.N.R., 2 N.R. 397, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248, refd to. [para. 28].

Anderson v. Township of Ameliasburg (Ont. C.A.) (1931), 66 O.L.R. 583, refd to. [para. 31].

Ottawa Electric Light Company v. Corporation of City of Ottawa (1906), 12 O.L.R. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Re Oshawa Cable TV Limited v. Town of Whitby, [1969] 2 O.R. 18, refd to. [para. 42].

Coaxial Colourview Ltd. et al. v. Borough of Scarborough (1974), 50 D.L.R.(3d) 530, refd to. [para. 42].

Lynch v. Canada Northwest Land Company (1891), 19 S.C.R. 204, refd to. [para. 52].

Re the Argicultural Land Relief Act, [1938-39] C.T.C. 193, refd to. [para. 53].

Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit and Vegetable Committee, [1931] 2 D.L.R. 193, refd to. [para. 53].

City of Halifax v. Nova Scotia Car Works Ltd., [1914] A.C. 992, refd to. [para. 54].

Attorney General for Canada v. Registrar of Titles of Vancouver Land Registration District, [1934] 3 W.W.R. 165, refd to. [para. 56].

Re Cariboo College v. City of Kamloops (1982), 133 D.L.R.(3d) 241, refd to. [para. 57].

Eyben v. K.R. Ranches (1982), 38 A.R. 336; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 332, refd to. [para. 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-1, sect. 15 [para. 66].

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-26, sect. 17(7) [para. 34]; sect. 149.1 [para. 63].

Municipal Telephone Act, S.A. 1955, c. 218, sect. 3 [para. 45]; sect. 4 [para. 46].

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 246, sect. 2(26) [para. 36]; sect. 270(2) [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Spencer-Bower & Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata, (2nd Ed.), p. 18 [para. 25].

Dillon on Municipal Corporations, (4th Ed.), s. 89, [para. 40], vol. 2, p. 995 [para. 51].

Rogers, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.), vol. 1, para. 63.32 [para. 41].

Counsel:

J.E. Redmond, for QCTV;

W. Henkel, Q.C., for the Attorney General;

W.E. Wilson, for the City of Edmonton.

This case was heard by Stratton, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. The judgment of Stratton, J., was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on August 19, 1983.