Case information

Crown law — Real property and immovables — Taxation — Payments in lieu of taxes — Contribution for park purposes — Whether Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act can give rise to payment in lieu of taxes where there is levy that does not fall within s. 125 of Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether administrative decision maker could rule on applicable concept (namely whether contribution for park purposes is real property tax within meaning of Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act) while not applying definition of this concept found in enabling statute — Whether administrative decision maker could rule on applicable concept (namely whether contribution for park purposes is real property tax within meaning of Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act) by relying essentially on declaratory provision in provincial statute (Act respecting land use planning and development) — Constitution Act, 1867, s. 125 — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M 13, ss. 2(1) (“real property tax”) and 3(1) — Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A 19.1, ss. 117.1 and 117.16.

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.

In 2017, the Government of Canada, represented by the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, was contemplating, through Public Services and Procurement Canada (Public Services), building an immigration holding centre on lands it owned in the applicant city, Ville de Laval (City). For this purpose, the Government applied to the City for a building permit. In accordance with the Act respecting land use planning and development, the City passed a zoning and subdivision bylaw that allowed it to require a [TRANSLATION] “contribution for park purposes” (CPP) when the permit in question was issued. The objective behind the CPP was to cover certain public expenditures, such as for creating, expanding or maintaining parks, playgrounds or natural spaces. Public Services refused to pay the CPP because properties of the federal Crown enjoy constitutional immunity (they are exempt from any provincial and municipal taxation under s. 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and they also allegedly benefit from interjurisdictional immunity). The City then applied to the federal authorities for a payment in lieu of taxes (PLT) under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PLTA). Public Services denied the PLT in lieu of the CPP on the basis that this contribution did not meet the criteria for the PLTA scheme and that it therefore had no authority to grant a PLT in the circumstances. The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.