City of Edmonton v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Limited (as represented by AEC International Inc.)
(Alberta) (Civil) (By Leave)
Administrative law - Appeals, Standard of review, Jurisdiction.
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
Administrative law - Appeals - Standard of review - Composite Assessment Review Board - Jurisdiction - Appeal of shopping centre tax assessment - City assessor requesting assessment of centre be increased based on different categorization of centre - Board accepting assessor’s argument in part - Assessment increasing by approximately $9.5 million - Lower courts finding City assessor cannot effectively mount a cross-complaint and seek an increase in assessment at this stage - Whether a statutory appeal provision rebuts presumption of reasonableness when a tribunal is interpreting its home statute or a closely related statute - In determining whether legislative intent rebuts presumption of reasonableness, how should statutory appeal clause and other factors be considered - Whether Review Board had jurisdiction to decide that underlying policies of fairness and equity allow it to increase a property assessment at request of municipality - Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
The respondent shopping centre was assessed for tax purposes at $31,328,500. It brought a complaint against the assessment to the Assessment Review Board for the City of Edmonton (“Review Board”). A new city assessor took responsibility for the file and disagreed with the categorization of the mall and applied to the Review Board proceeding to have the assessment increased.
The Review Board accepted the assessor’s argument in part and increased the assessment to $40,795,500. The shopping centre sought leave to appeal this decision and it was granted. The Court of Queen’s Bench allowed the appeal and remitted it back to the Review Board. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- Date modified: