Zimmer et al. v. Edenwold (Rural Municipality) No. 158, (1994) 128 Sask.R. 129 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Lane, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 01, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1994), 128 Sask.R. 129 (CA)

Zimmer v. Edenwold (1994), 128 Sask.R. 129 (CA);

    85 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

David F. Zimmer and Ruby J. Zimmer (appellants) v. Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158 (respondent)

(Appeal File No. 1899)

Indexed As: Zimmer et al. v. Edenwold (Rural Municipality) No. 158

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Lane, JJ.A.

December 23, 1994.

Summary:

A taxpayer claimed a tax exemption under s. 331(1) of the Rural Municipality Act. The Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board framed questions for determination under s. 33(1) of the Municipal Board Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the taxpayer was not entitled to the tax exemption.

Real Property Tax - Topic 41

General principles - Interpretation of taxing statute - A taxpayer appealed a decision of the Assessment Appeals Com­mittee alleging, inter alia, that the Com­mittee erred by construing the taxing stat­ute provisions liberally in favour of the taxing body while construing the tax ex­emption provisions strictly - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the interpretation of a taxing statute and the exemption provisions - The court held that the Committee erred by strictly inter­preting the exemption provisions of the statute - See paragraphs 3 to 7.

Real Property Tax - Topic 6001

Exemptions - Interpretation of exemptions - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 41 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 6079

Exemptions - Rural properties - Dwelling occupied by an owner or lessee - A taxpayer claimed a tax exemption under s. 331(1)(q) of the Rural Municipality Act allotted to "a dwelling ... occupied by an owner" - The taxpayer, who resided in Regina, owned a second house, which was occupied by his parents from the late fall to early spring - The taxpayer stayed one night at the house approximately every second or third weekend - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the taxpayer's use of the house did not make it a dwelling within the meaning of s. 331(1)(q) because there was no element of meaningful dwelling involved in his use of the house - The general object and purpose of the legislation intended more significant occupation - See paragraphs 8 to 16.

Words and Phrases

Dwelling - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "dwelling" in s. 331(1)(q) of the Rural Municipality Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. R-26.1.

Cases Noticed:

Qu'Appelle Developments Ltd. v. Regina (City)(No. 1) (1989), 77 Sask.R. 19 (C.A.), consd. [para. 1].

Québec (Communauté urbaine) et autres v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours (1994), 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Energy and Mines) (1987), 60 Sask.R. 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 4].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. et al. (1990), 86 Sask.R. 259; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Rural Municipality Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. R-26.1, sect. 2(1)(w), sect. 331(1)(q) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Concise Oxford Dictionary, generally [para. 14].

Counsel:

T. Leier, for the appellants;

G. Dowling, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 1, 1994, by Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Lane, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on December 23, 1994, by Wakeling, J.A.