J. 2000 SKCA 141 Docket: 3371 THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Coram: Cameron, Gerwing Lane JJ.A. THE CITY OF REGINA and EAST LANDING PLAZA LTD. and SASKATCHEWAN ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY RESPONDENTS COUNSEL: Mr. Neil Robertson for the Appellant Mr. F.C. Zinkhan for the Respondent Mr. B. Hornsberger, Q.C. for the Sask. Municipal Board DISPOSITION: On Appeal From: Assessment Appeals Committee Appeal Heard: December 8, 2000 Appeal Dismissed: December 8, 2000 (orally) Written Reasons: December 11, 2000 Reasons By: The Honourable Madam Justice Gerwing In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane GERWING J.A. (orally) [1 land owner appealed an assessment for taxation purposes to the Board of Revision of the City of Regina (the “Board”) alleging it to be too high. No cross-appeal was filed by the City, but the Board increased the assessment. The City then appealed to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee (the “Committee”) to ask for further increase. There was no cross-appeal by the owner. [2 The Committee concluded that the Board had erred, having no jurisdiction, as the matter had unfolded, to make an increase, and it restored the original value. [3 Leave to appeal was granted with respect to the following three questions: (1) Did the Committee err in jurisdiction in making an order with respect to issues not raised by the appellant’s notice of intention to appeal? (2) Did the Committee err in law in ruling that the assessed value cannot be increased where the board orders correction of errors in the assessment? (3) If not, then did the Committee err in jurisdiction in failing to have regard to and to apply s. 263.2 of The Urban Municipality Act, 1984 to order an adjustment in the assessment to reflect the corrections? [4 We are of the view that the answer to all three of these questions is no. On the facts of the case, the Committee was correct in concluding that the Board had no jurisdiction to make the order which it did. It then, as an appellate entity, was asked to affirm what was, in essence, a nullity. This it could not do. While its procedure was flawed to some extent in that it did not specifically raise the vires issue so as permit the City to make argument on it, its conclusion in this respect was correct. The issue of vires in the body below was open to it and indeed necessary to it to consider its conclusion in this regard. [5 Having given these answers, the appeal of the City, in essence, stands dismissed and the respondent taxpayer will have its costs in the ususal way on double Column V.
The landowner appealed an assessment for taxation purposes to the City Board of Revision alleging it was too high. No cross-appeal was filed by the City but the Board increased the assessment. The City then appealed to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee to ask for a further increase. There was no-cross appeal by the owner. The Committee concluded the Board erred, having no jurisdiction to make an increase, and restored the original value. Leave to appeal was granted with respect to whether the Committee erred in making an order respecting issues not raised by the notice of intention to appeal; in ruling the assessed value cannot be increased where the board orders correction of errors in the assessment; if not, whether the Committee erred in jurisdiction in failing to apply s.263.2 of the Urban Municipality Act. HELD: The appeal was dismissed with costs on double column V to the respondent. The Committee was correct in concluding the Board had no jurisdiction to make the order. It was asked to affirm what was in essence a nullity.