Saskatoon (City) v. North Ridge Development Corp., 2015 SKCA 13

JudgeJackson, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Case DateFebruary 13, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2015 SKCA 13;(2015), 451 Sask.R. 265 (CA)

Saskatoon v. North Ridge Dev. Corp. (2015), 451 Sask.R. 265 (CA);

    628 W.A.C. 265

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.026

City of Saskatoon (prospective appellant/respondent) v. North Ridge Development Corporation (prospective respondent/appellant)

(CACV2569; 2015 SKCA 13)

Indexed As: Saskatoon (City) v. North Ridge Development Corp.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, J.A.

February 13, 2015.

Summary:

The City of Saskatoon applied for leave to appeal two decisions of the Assessment Appeals Committee pursuant to s. 33.1 of the Municipal Board Act. Both decisions concerned the same land owned by North Ridge Development Corp. in the City, but pertained to two tax years: 2011 and 2012.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: For a related case involving these parties, see (2013), 417 Sask.R. 64; 580 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.).

Real Property Tax - Topic 7167

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - Applications or appeals to the courts - Leave to appeal - The City of Saskatoon applied for leave to appeal two decisions of the Assessment Appeals Committee pursuant to s. 33.1 of the Municipal Board Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., discussed s. 33.1 and stated that "[s]ection 33.1 does not grant a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal as exists with respect to appeals from the Court of Queen's Bench. An appeal under s. 33.1 is restricted to questions of law or jurisdiction only. If the Chambers judge grants leave under s. 33.1, the Court that hears the appeal will not consider the correctness of the Committee's decision, except insofar as the decision turns on the identified questions of law or jurisdiction; nor will the Court weigh the evidence to consider the reasonableness of the decision or any finding of fact. The Court's task is to consider the decision-only as it relates to the questions of law or jurisdiction." - See paragraphs 38 to 55.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7167

Assessment appeals (incl. complaints) - Applications or appeals to the courts - Leave to appeal - The City of Saskatoon applied for leave to appeal two decisions of the Assessment Appeals Committee pursuant to s. 33.1 of the Municipal Board Act - Both decisions concerned the same land owned by North Ridge Development Corp. in the City, but pertained to two tax years: 2011 and 2012 - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., dismissed the application for two primary reasons - First, while some of the City's grounds of appeal raised questions of law, the Committee either did not make the suggested error, or the suggested error had no material bearing on the Committee's decision in any event - Second, the appeal was not significant to the municipal tax assessment process - North Ridge also pointed out that the issue was no longer a live issue in relation to the subject land as it was now Phase I land and was appropriately assessed at the higher rate - This meant that, at most, the decisions affected the subject land, and only the subject land, for two years only - The proposed appeal did not transcend the particulars that the case presented - See paragraphs 56 to 91.

Cases Noticed:

Regina (City) v. Laing Property Corp. (1994), 128 Sask.R. 29; 85 W.A.C. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Cadillac Fairview Corp. et al. v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (2000), 199 Sask.R. 72; 232 W.A.C. 72; 2000 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 23].

Saskatchewan Municipal Board v. First City Trust et al. (1996), 148 Sask.R. 298; 134 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Estevan Coal Corp. v. Estevan No. 5 (Rural Municipality) et al. (2000), 199 Sask.R. 57; 232 W.A.C. 57; 2000 SKCA 82, refd to. [para. 39].

Dubois v. Saskatchewan Municipal Board et al., [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc. v. Sulz (2000), 203 Sask.R. 115; 240 W.A.C. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency v. Andros Enterprises Ltd. et al. (2004), 254 Sask.R. 314; 336 W.A.C. 314; 2004 SKCA 132, refd to. [para. 46].

Schalk v. Regina (City) et al., [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 278; 2000 SKCA 140, refd to. [para. 47].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan (2002), 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121; 2002 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 48].

101050457 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. v. Regina (City), [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 106; 2007 SKCA 92, refd to. [para. 49].

Bison Properties Ltd. v. Regina (City) et al., [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 105; 2007 SKCA 135, refd to. [para. 49].

Prince Albert (City) v. 101027381 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. (2008), 307 Sask.R. 162; 417 W.A.C. 162; 2008 SKCA 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Behenna et al. v. Rudy No. 284 (Rural Municipality) et al. (2012), 385 Sask.R. 240; 536 W.A.C. 240; 2012 SKCA 14, refd to. [para. 49].

Rutherford v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd., [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.002; 2014 SKCA 118, refd to. [para. 49].

Pilot Butte (Town) v. Aaron Enterprises Inc., [2014] Sask.R. Uned. 69; 2014 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 49].

Northland Hotels Management Inc. v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 276; 397 W.A.C. 276; 2007 SKCA 56, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 1].

Saskatoon (City) v. Boardwalk Reit Properties Holding Ltd. et al. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 282; 397 W.A.C. 282; 2007 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 1].

Saskatoon (City) v. Arsic (2009), 343 Sask.R. 75; 472 W.A.C. 75; 2009 SKCA 122, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 1].

Regina Racquetcourts North Inc. v. Regina (City) et al., [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 86; 2000 SKCA 65, refd to. [para. 51].

Regina (City) v. Gordstone Enterprises Ltd. et al., [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 77; 2003 SKCA 36, refd to. [para. 51].

Ipsco Inc. v. Sherwood No. 159 (Rural Municipality) et al. (2001), 203 Sask.R. 152; 240 W.A.C. 152; 2001 SKCA 4, refd to. [para. 51].

Kramer Ltd. v. Sherwood No. 159 (Rural Municipality) et al. (2000), 203 Sask.R. 68; 240 W.A.C. 68; 2001 SKCA 5, refd to. [para. 51].

Numa Development Corp. v. North Battleford (City) et al. (1998), 168 Sask.R. 180; 173 W.A.C. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Double Diamond Ranch Ltd. v. Clinworth No. 230 (Rural Municipality) et al. (1998), 172 Sask.R. 241; 185 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Board Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. M-23.2, sect. 33.1 [para. 43].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 1998), pp. 262 to 265 [para. 66].

Counsel:

Kim Bodnarchuk, for the prospective appellant;

Joel Hesje, Q.C., for the prospective respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers, on September 22 and 26, 2014, by Jackson, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on February 13, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Abouhamra v. Prairie North Regional Health Authority, 2016 SKQB 293
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 7, 2016
    ...A further example of the interpretation of such a right of appeal is found in City of Saskatoon v North Ridge Development Corporation , 2015 SKCA 13, 451 Sask R 265. That case involved an appeal on questions of law and jurisdiction pursuant to s. 33.1 of The Municipal Board Act , SS 1988-89......
  • SBLP Town N Country Mall Inc. v Moose Jaw (City),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • January 24, 2022
    ...the existing test for determining whether to grant leave to appeal as set out in Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation, 2015 SKCA 13, 451 Sask R 265 [North Ridge], is fundamentally sound. Nonetheless, it can be usefully clarified. [4]      &#......
  • South Hill Mall Property Holdings Inc. v Prince Albert (City), 2020 SKCA 80
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • June 30, 2020
    ...sufficient merit and importance to justify leave being granted must be found. See Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation, 2015 SKCA 13 at para 48, 451 Sask R 265. The proposed question of law or jurisdiction must emerge from the decision under appeal and the evidentiary reco......
  • Aquila Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Edenwold No. 158 (Rural Municipality), 2016 SKCA 88
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • June 27, 2016
    ...R 121, modified to take into account the final nature of the order under appeal ( Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation , 2015 SKCA 13 at para 55, 451 Sask R 265 [ North Ridge ]). [7] Since this is an appeal from a final decision of the Board, the analytical framework conte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Abouhamra v. Prairie North Regional Health Authority, 2016 SKQB 293
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 7, 2016
    ...A further example of the interpretation of such a right of appeal is found in City of Saskatoon v North Ridge Development Corporation , 2015 SKCA 13, 451 Sask R 265. That case involved an appeal on questions of law and jurisdiction pursuant to s. 33.1 of The Municipal Board Act , SS 1988-89......
  • SBLP Town N Country Mall Inc. v Moose Jaw (City),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • January 24, 2022
    ...the existing test for determining whether to grant leave to appeal as set out in Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation, 2015 SKCA 13, 451 Sask R 265 [North Ridge], is fundamentally sound. Nonetheless, it can be usefully clarified. [4]      &#......
  • South Hill Mall Property Holdings Inc. v Prince Albert (City), 2020 SKCA 80
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • June 30, 2020
    ...sufficient merit and importance to justify leave being granted must be found. See Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation, 2015 SKCA 13 at para 48, 451 Sask R 265. The proposed question of law or jurisdiction must emerge from the decision under appeal and the evidentiary reco......
  • Aquila Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Edenwold No. 158 (Rural Municipality), 2016 SKCA 88
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • June 27, 2016
    ...R 121, modified to take into account the final nature of the order under appeal ( Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation , 2015 SKCA 13 at para 55, 451 Sask R 265 [ North Ridge ]). [7] Since this is an appeal from a final decision of the Board, the analytical framework conte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT