Case information

None.

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 - Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Procedural fairness - Whether the Municipal Government Board (the “Board”) breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require disclosure of information to the Respondent - Whether the lease rate comparables were evidence accepted and relied upon by the Board in making its decision - Can an administrative tribunal with acknowledged expertise in its area be found to have acted in a procedurally unfair manner when it makes a policy decision concerning the kind of evidence it requires to render a just decision and proceeds to make its decision based on that evidence? - Can the decision of an administrative tribunal be found reasonable on a standard of review analysis, yet be found unfair on a procedural fairness analysis when the same factors are applied?

The Respondent appealed its 2004 property tax assessment to the Assessment Review Board (the “ARB”), arguing that the Applicant had applied an excessive rental rate for a property that was an office/warehouse hybrid. The A.R.B. reduced the assessment, and the Applicant appealed that decision to the Board. Both before the A.R.B. and the Board, the Applicant presented rental rate comparables for about 25 properties, set out in tabular form showing the streets and city quadrants, and general information about size and lease year. It did not disclose addresses or details about the lease terms. When the Applicant refused the Respondent’s request that it provide the addresses of the properties so that they could test how comparable they were, the Respondent applied to the Board to compel the Applicant to disclose the addresses.

Both as a preliminary matter and at the hearing on the merits, the Board refused to order disclosure. The Board stated that it was satisfied that a decision could be made on the evidence before it, and it allowed the Applicant's appeal. The Respondent applied unsuccessfully for a rehearing by the Board, and then applied for judicial review. The main issue became whether the Board had breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require disclosure of information the Respondent needed to challenge evidence which was accepted and relied upon by the Board in making its decision.