Case information

Crown law ? Real property and immovables ? Taxation ? Payments in lieu of taxes ? Applicable tax scheme in calculation of property value and effective rate ? National Capital Commission ? Whether reduction in values by 50% decided by National Capital Commission is compatible with PILT scheme and pronouncements of this Court in Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services), 2012 SCC 29, as to intention of Parliament ? Whether reduction in values by 50% decided by National Capital Commission reflects value that is objective and in accordance with requirements of Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F 2.1 ? Whether reduction in values by 50% decided by National Capital Commission has effect of rendering recourse to Panel useless and illusory ? Payments in lieu of taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M 13, ss. 6 and 11.1 ? Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F 2.1, ss. 34, 43 to 45 ? National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. N 4, ss. 4 and 16 ? Crown Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81 1030, ss. 2 and 7.

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.

Further to the deposit of the triennial municipal assessment roll (2018-2020), the applicant, the Municipality of Chelsea (Municipality), claimed a sum of money as payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) from the National Capital Commission (NCC), represented by the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, for the federal properties situated within its area pursuant to the Payments in lieu of taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M 13, and the Crown Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81 1030. The parcels of land in question are all situated in Gatineau Park. The assessment roll contained increases in value from 19% to 25% for the federal properties despite the fact that the average increase for all immovables in the municipality was 3.9%. In light of those increases, the NCC conducted a review of the file and transmitted requests for justification to the Municipality. The NCC rejected the comparable sales table transmitted by the Municipality because of the unique characteristics of the parcels of land. At the invitation of the NCC, the Municipality then transmitted requests for advice to the Payments in lieu of Taxes Dispute Advisory Panel (Panel). In February 2021, the Panel provided its advice. The NCC acknowledged the Panel’s recommendations with respect to the location of the comparable sales. However, it conducted further analyses because it did not agree with the Panel’s advice regarding the approach to be taken regarding the determination of the property value of the parcels of land. After declining the NCC’s invitation to comment on the result of the analyses, the Municipality sent a formal notice calling for the NCC to render a decision in accordance with the Panel’s advice in every respect. In response, the NCC stated that the advice was only a recommendation and again invited the Municipality to comment on the analysis or provide it with any relevant element. After the Municipality refused a second time, the Chief Executive Officer of the NCC rendered a decision on November 19, 2021. In practice, that decision had the effect of reducing by more than 50% the amount of money that the Panel had recommended be paid as PILT. The Municipality filed an application for judicial review of that decision. The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.