Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: DC-04-000644-ML DATE: 2005-10-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION (MOVING PARTY) V. 699958 ONTARIO LIMITED AND CITY OF TORONTO (RESPONDENTS)

BEFORE: Justice Sachs

COUNSEL: Karey Lunau, for the Moving Party David G. Fleet, for the Respondent, 699958 ONTARIO LIMITED

HEARD: September 23, 2005

Endorsement

SACHS J.

[1] This is a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (The "ARB"). An appeal from the ARB can be brought to the Divisional Court, with leave, on a question of law (Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A. 31, as amended, s.43.1). In granting leave this Court must be satisfied that:

(i) There is some reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision; and

(ii) The question on which leave is sought is a point of law of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court.

[2] The decision in question concerned the interpretation of certain property class regulations. According to the Moving Party, the ARB ignored the clear wording of these regulations in order to substitute a result that it believed was implied from the context of the regulations. In doing so, the Moving Party submitted that the ARB ignored a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation – that is, that where the language of a legislative provision is clear and unambiguous its terms must be applied. It is only where the provisions are reasonably capable of more than one meaning that resort may be made to external interpretive aids such as the intention of the Legislature.

[3] Having reviewed the decision in question and the language of the Regulations at issue, I do not accept the submission that this is a situation where the ARB ignored the clear wording of the Regulations in question. Rather, in a careful and well-reasoned decision, they chose a possible interpretation of these Regulations that took into account the facts of the case before them, the wording of the Regulations, the scheme of assessment and taxation as a whole and an interpretation that was consistent with the purpose of the Regulations in a situation where the intention of the Legislature was capable of being clearly implied from the context. This is entirely consistent with the approach to statutory interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours v. Communauté urbaine de Québec and City of Québec, 1994 58 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3 where, at page 20, Gonthier J. states:

"A legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal interpretation depending on the purpose underlying it, and the purpose must be identified in light of the context of the statute, its objective and the legislative intent: this is the theological approach."

[4] Thus, I do not accept that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision and the motion for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

[5] If the parties cannot agree on the question of costs, they may forward their submissions to me in writing within 10 days of the release of this endorsement.

SACHS J.

DATE: October 14, 2005