Case information

Municipal law — Taxation — Property assessments — Wireless telecommunications network — Whether Court of Appeal erred in treating equipment as structures within meaning of ss. 41.1 and 67 of Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F-2.1, and as immovables within meaning of s. 1 para. 1(1) of AMT — Whether Court of Appeal erred in distorting concept of immovable through permanent attachment within meaning of s. 1 para. 1(2) of AMT — Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying standards of review established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 — Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F-2.1, ss. 1, 41.1 and 67.

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.

The applicant, Videotron ltd., contested the fact that its entire wireless telecommunications network was entered on the property assessment roll by the respondent cities, Ville de Montréal, Ville de Québec, Ville de Laval and Ville de Longueuil, and 34 other municipalities. In its opinion, a large portion of the equipment making up its network’s base stations could not be characterized as “immovable” according to the various definitions of this concept found in the Civil Code of Québec and the Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F-2.1 (AMT). Much of this equipment, in its view, was movable property that could not be entered on the roll. Starting in 2011, Videotron instituted various proceedings in the immovable property division of the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ) to challenge many of these entries on the roll. To simplify procedure and facilitate decision-making, the ATQ and the parties identified 15 test cases that highlighted the various possible characteristics of Videotron’s base stations. The parties and the ATQ agreed that there would be a hearing for test cases involving the four respondent cities and that the other municipalities would await the outcome of those cases. In addition, the parties agreed that the hearing would proceed in two stages: (1) the standard installations for the equipment would be examined to determine whether the equipment had to be entered on the roll under the provisions of the AMT; and (2) if the ATQ found that the network had to be entered on the roll in whole or in part, the value to be entered on the roll for each unit of assessment would then be determined. At the time of the ATQ hearing, Videotron’s network consisted of more than 1,200 base stations all across Quebec. On June 11, 2014, the ATQ found that the property in issue had to be entered on the roll under the AMT. The Court of Québec allowed the appeal, the Superior Court allowed the application for judicial review, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.