SCC File No. 36403 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL of ALBERTA) BETWEEN: the CITY of EDMONTON
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SCC File No. 36403 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA) BETWEEN: THE CITY OF EDMONTON APPELLANT (Appellant) - and - EDMONTON EAST (CAPILANO) SHOPPING CENTRES LIMITED (AS REPRESENTED BY AEC INTERNATIONAL INC.) RESPONDENT (Respondent) - and- THE ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD FOR THE CITY OF EDMONTON BRITISH COLUMBIA ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INTERVENERS ______________________________________________________________________________ FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, EDMONTON EAST (CAPILANO) SHOPPING CENTRES LIMITED (AS REPRESENTED BY AEC INTERNATIONAL INC.) (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ______________________________________________________________________________ Wilson Laycraft Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Barristers and Solicitors Barristers and Solicitors 333 - 11th Avenue S.W., Suite 1601 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Calgary, AB T2R 1L9 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Telephone: (403) 290-1601 Telephone: (613) 786-0171 Facsimile: (403) 290-0828 Facsimile: (613) 788-3587 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Gilbert J. Ludwig, Q.C Jeffrey W. Beedell Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Respondent, Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Limited (as represented by AEC Centres Limited (as represented by International Inc.) AEC International Inc.) 2 City of Edmonton McAnsh Law 9th Floor, Chancery Hall Barristers and Solicitors 3 Sir Winston Churchill Square 44 Chestnut Street Edmonton, AB T5J 2C3 Ottawa, ON K1S 1A1 Telephone: (780) 496-7200 Telephone: (613) 294-1156 Facsimile: (780) 496-7267 Facsimile: (613) 482-5177 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Cameron J. Ashmore Scott McAnsh Counsel for the Appellant, Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Appellant, City of Edmonton City of Edmonton Emery Jamieson Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Barristers and Solicitors Barristers and Solicitors 10235 - 101 Street, Suite 1700 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Edmonton, AB T5J 3G1 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Telephone: (780) 970-6279 Telephone: (613) 786-8695 Facsimile: (780) 420-6277 Facsimile: (613) 788-3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Katharine L. Hurlburt D. Lynne Watt Counsel for the Intervener, Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Assessment Review Board for the City of Assessment Review Board for the City of Edmonton Edmonton Crease Harman & Company Supreme Advocacy LLP Barristers and Solicitors Barristers and Solicitors 1070 Douglas Street, 8th Floor 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 Victoria, BC V8W 2S8 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Telephone: (250) 388-5421 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Facsimile: (250) 388-4294 Facsimile: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email [email protected] R. Bruce Hallsor Marie-France Major Colin G. Simkus Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, British Columbia Assessment Authority British Columbia Assessment Authority 3 Attorney General of British Columbia Burke-Robertson 1301 - 865 Hornby Street Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 Telephone: (604) 660-3093 Ottawa, ON K2P 2H3 Facsimile: (604) 660-6797 Telephone: (613) 236-9665 Facsimile: (613) 235-4430 Sarah Bevan Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia i TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS................................................................................ 1 A. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 1 i. Overview of Respondent’s Position........................................................................ 1 ii. Decisions in the Courts Below ................................................................................ 4 a) Court of Queen’s Bench.................................................................................... 4 b) Court of Appeal................................................................................................. 5 B. FACTS .......................................................................................................................... 6 i Capilano’s Complaint ............................................................................................. 6 ii. City Assessor Threatens to Seek an Increase .......................................................... 6 iii. The Hearing ............................................................................................................ 7 PART II – RESPONDENT’S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO APPELLANT’S PROPOSED QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 8 A. Standard of Review: Does a statutory appeal provision rebut the presumption of reasonableness when a tribunal is interpreting its home statute or a closely related statute? .......................................................................................................................... 8 B. Standard of Review: In determining whether legislative intent rebuts the presumption of reasonableness, how should the statutory appeal clause and other factors be considered? ................................................................................................................... 9 C. Assessment Law Policy: Did the tribunal have the jurisdiction to decide that the underlying policies of fairness and equity allow a tribunal to increase a property assessment at the request of a municipality? .............................................................. 10 PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT .................................................................. 11 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................ 11 i. Contextual Approach Should Not Be Curtailed.................................................... 11 ii. Standard of Review Analysis ................................................................................ 12 a) Statutory Right of Appeal ............................................................................... 13 b) The ARB is Not an Expert Tribunal ............................................................... 13 c) The Presumption of Expertise is Rebutted ...................................................... 15 d) Deference to a Tribunal that Lacks Institutional Independence ..................... 18 e) Purpose of the Assessment Appeal Provisions of the MGA ........................... 20 f) The Nature of the Question ............................................................................. 21 g) What is the Significance of a Statutory Appeal Clause? ................................ 21 h) Is Shared Jurisdiction of Tribunals and Courts an Exception to the Presumption of Reasonableness? .................................................................... 23 i) Legislative Intent on Questions of Importance ............................................... 25 ii iii. No One Factor Should Be Privileged Over Others in the Contextual Approach .. 25 iv. True Jurisdictional Questions: Another Exception to the Presumption of Reasonableness ..................................................................................................... 26 B. ON THE MERITS: THE CARB’S INTERPRETATION IS UNREASONABLE: THE CITY COULD NOT CROSS-APPEAL AND THE BOARD COULD NOT INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 28 i. The New System ................................................................................................... 30 a) Only an Assessed Person or Taxpayer May Complain ................................... 30 b) Limits on Subject Matter of the Appeal & Jurisdiction of the Board ............. 30 c) Section 9(1) of MRAC ..................................................................................... 31 d) Municipality Cannot Change Assessment During the Appeal Process (ss. 305(5)) ...................................................................................................... 32 e) Statutory Appeal Clause (ss. 470 (5)) - Test for Leave to Appeal .................. 32 ii. An Assessment Cannot Be Amended as a Result of a Change of Opinion of Value (s. 305) .................................................................................................................. 33 iii. The City Did Not File a Complaint. It is Not a Complainant ............................... 38 C. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 39 PART IV – COSTS ........................................................................................................... 40 PART V – ORDERS SOUGHT ....................................................................................... 40 PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... 41 PART VII – STATUTORY PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 46 1 PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS A. OVERVIEW i. Overview of Respondent’s Position In sum, without administrative tribunals, the rule of law in the modern regulatory state would falter and fail. Tribunals offer flexible, swift and relevant justice. In an age when access to justice is increasingly lacking,