Date: 20070705
Docket: T-631-05
Citation: 2007 FC 700
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of July 2007
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
CITY OF MONTRÉAL
Applicant
and
CANADIAN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Intervener
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
administrative decision whose lawfulness is challenged by the applicant was made
in March 2005 by a manager of the respondent, Lise G. Powers (the tribunal). Except
where otherwise indicated in these reasons, the amounts of the adjustments made
by the tribunal to the applicant’s applications in lieu of payment of real
property taxes for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 are those found in the amended
motion to institute proceedings filed by the respondent in the Quebec Superior
Court (docket No. 500-17-019933-046) and served on the applicant on or about March 16, 2005 (the
impugned decision).
[2]
The
applications for payment were submitted to the respondent in accordance with
Part I of the Crown Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81-1030, as
amended (CCPR). The adjustments found in the impugned decision were made by the
tribunal on behalf of the respondent under the supposed authority of section 7
of the CCPR and section 4 of the Interim Payments and
Recovery of Overpayments Regulations, SOR/81-226, as amended
(the IPROR), which in the latter case allows recovery of an overpayment made to
a taxing authority under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. M-13 (the PLTA), or the IPROR.
[3]
First
of all, the tribunal reduced the amount of the payment in lieu of real property
tax (PLRT) to be paid by the respondent for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years to
$2,037,931.94 and $2,137,832.35 respectively. Secondly, the tribunal assessed
the amount of the PLRT payable by the respondent for the 2005 taxation year at
$1,947,397.80. Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that the total amount
payable to the applicant as a PLRT for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 was
$6,123,162.09. On March 16, 2005, the amounts already paid by the respondent
added up to $6,763,337.72. Accordingly, the respondent did not have to make any
PLRT for the year 2005; instead, the applicant owes it $640,175.63 for the
overpayment.
[4]
In
its originating notice filed in the Court on April 12,
2005,
the applicant submits that the tribunal acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in not
using the real property tax rate usually applicabe to non-residential immovables
when calculating the effective rate specified in section 7 of the CCPR. Accordingly,
the respondent acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in retroactively reducing the
total payment of $4,357,107.74 already made to the applicant for the 2003
taxation year by an amount of $2,319,235.79 and the first instalment of
$2,406,229.98 already paid to the applicant for 2004 by $2,611,883.54, and by
claiming an amount of $640,175.63 from the applicant in March 2005 as an
overpayment. In the alternative, the applicant submits that even if the respondent
may apply a different real property tax rate, it cannot do so retroactively. In
addition, the respondent breached the principles of procedural fairness in
rendering the impugned decision.
[5]
The
relevant statutory and regulatory provisions are reproduced in the annex to
these reasons.
1. Municipal
tax rules in the province of Quebec
[6] The applicant
is a legal person established in the public interest under the Charter of
Ville de Montréal, R.S.Q., c. C-11.4 (the Charter), which specifies
that the applicant is a municipality governed under the Cities and Towns Act,
R.S.Q., c. C-19 (the CTA).
[7] Under section 485 of
the CTA, a municipal council may, subject to the Act respecting municipal
taxation, R.S.Q. c. F-2.1 (the AMT), impose and levy
annually on all taxable immovables in the territory of the municipal territory
a tax based on their value as shown on the assessment roll.
[8] For
these purposes, under the AMT, all immovables situated in the territory of a
local municipality are entered on the property assessment roll, except for
those described in sections 63 to 68 of the AMT, which are not entered on the roll (section 31 of the AMT). In practice,
the tax base, that is, the basis for real property taxation, is established by
registering immovables on the roll. Any challenge regarding an entry on the
property assessment roll may be brought before the Administrative Tribunal of
Québec (ATQ) if the person applying for review has not entered into an
agreement with the assessor on an alteration to the roll (sections 138.4 and
138.5 of the AMT).
[9] That
being said, wherever the law provides that only part of the value of an
immovable is taxable or that it is exempt from property taxes, the roll must
state the taxable value of the immovable or the fact that it is exempt, as the
case may be. Where applicable, the entry must be accompanied with a reference
to its legislative source (section 55 of the AMT). More specifically, the AMT provides that immovables included
in a unit of assessment entered on the roll in the name of the Crown or of a Crown corporation are exempt from all municipal or
school property taxes (section 204, paragraphs 1 and 1.1 of the AMT). The
provincial exemption is consistent with section 125 of the Constitution Act,
1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reproduced in R.S.C. 1985, App. II,
No. 5, which provides that no property or lands belonging to Canada or any
province shall be liable to taxation.
[10] When
a non-taxable immovable included in a unit of
assessment entered on the roll in the name of the
Crown or of a Crown corporation is occupied by a person other than the Crown or
a Crown corporation, the property taxes to which that immovable would be
subject without that exemption are levied on the lessee or, if there is no
lessee, on the occupant, and are payable by the lessee or the occupant.
However, the rule does not apply where, according to federal law, a payment in
lieu of real property tax (PLRT) is paid in respect of the immovable (section
208 of the AMT). (In this case, the AMT
uses the term “subsidy”, which until 2001 was used in federal legislation).
[11] Finally,
every local municipality may, by by-law, impose a business tax on any person
entered on its roll of rental values carrying on, for pecuniary gain or not, an
economic or administrative activity in matters of finance, trade, industry or
services, a calling, an art, a profession or any other activity constituting a
means of profit, gain or livelihood, except an employment or charge. The tax is
imposed, according to the roll, on the occupant of each business establishment
on the basis of its rental value, at the rate fixed in the by-law (section 232
of the AMT). However,
no business tax may be imposed by reason of any activity carried on by the
Crown or a Crown corporation (section 236 of the AMT).
2. Federal
program for payment in lieu of property tax PLPT)
[12] As
noted in the preceding, section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is
intended to prevent inroads, by way of taxation, upon the property one level of
government, by another level of government. Thus, the immunity conferred by
this provision must override the express powers of taxation contained in
subsections 91(3) and 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Re
Exported Natural Gas Tax, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1004, at pages 10765 and 1067).
[13] Although
it is true that the Crown and its agents are exempted from paying any form of
property tax on their properties, they are nonetheless on equal footing with
other property owners insofar as access to vital municipal services are
concerned. Accordingly, in 1939, the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission on
Dominion-Provincial Relations recommended that the federal government
voluntarily pay real property taxes on Crown property.
[14] However,
it was not until 1951 that Parliament enacted the Municipal Grants Act,
S.C. 1950-51, c. 54, which allowed the federal government to pay grants to
municipalities in lieu of real property taxes. This Act was amended several
times and became the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. M-13, as amended (the PLTA). In 1967, the federal cabinet issued a directive
to the effect that all Crown corporations were also to make payments in lieu of
taxes, and in 1980 the PLTA was amended to include all entities now designated
as Crown corporations. These Crown corporations are listed in schedules III and
IV to the PLTA.
[15] The
purpose of the PLTA is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of
payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to taxing authorities, including
municipalities, on a voluntary basis (sections 2.1 and 15 of the PLTA). It
should be noted that this legislative scheme is distinct from those which may
exist in each province with respect to the provincial Crown. For example, in Quebec, payments in lieu of taxes are also made by the provincial
government (sections 254 to 258 of the AMT).
[16] In
the case at bar, the applicant is a “taxing authority” within the meaning of
the PLTA, and the respondent’s name appears in Schedule III to the PLTA.
[17] For
the purposes of applying the PLTA and the CCPR, PILTs may be paid in respect of
any immovable and real property meeting:
(a) the
definition of “federal property”, in the case of a PILT made by the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services Canada (the Minister) (section 2 of the
PLTA); or
(b) the
definition of “corporation property”, in the case of a PILT made by a
corporation included in Schedule III or IV to the PLTA (section 2 of the CCPR).
[18] The
PLTA refers to three types of PILTs:
(a) payments
in lieu of a real property tax (PLRT),
(b) payments
in lieu of a frontage or area tax (PLFAT), and
(c) payments
in lieu of a business occupancy tax (PLBOT).
[19] PLRTs
and PLFATs are made to taxing authorities by the Minister and by the
corporations listed in schedules III and IV to the PLTA (section 3 and
paragraph 11(1)(a) of the PLTA and section 6 of the CCPR). However, only
the corporations included in Schedule IV to the PLTA make PLBOTs to taxing
authorities (paragraph 11(1)(b) of the PLTA and section 15 of the CCPR).
[20] The
conditions for PLRTs and PLFATs made by the Minister are specified in the PLTA
itself (see sections 3 to 8 of the PLTA, which must be read together with the
definitions in section 2 of the PLTA).
[21] Needless
to say, the Canadian government is the biggest land owner in the country. In
practice, managers from the Department of Public Works and Government Services
Canada (PWGSC) administer the PILT Program for federal properties managed by
federal departments (department properties). In 2004, PWGSC paid approximately
$426 million to some 1,300 taxing authorities, which obviously excludes
payments made by Crown corporations not under the Minister’s responsibility.
[22] Accordingly,
the conditions governing PLRTs and PLFATs made by the corporations included in
schedules III and IV to the PLTA are specified in Part I of the CCPR (see
sections 5 to 13 of the CCPR, which must be read together with the definitions
in section 2 of the CCPR). However, the conditions governing PLBOTs made by
corporations included in Schedule IV of the PLTA are specified in Part II of
the CCPR (see sections 14 to 18 of the CCPR, which must also be read together
with the definitions in section 2 of the CCPR).
3. Time and
manner of payments in lieu of taxes
[23] As
has already been noted, in principle, the PLTA does not confer any right to a
payment (section 15 of the PLTA). However, in practice, the fact that an
application for payment has been made pursuant to the PLTA—and, where
applicable, the CCPR— creates a legitimate expectation on the part of the
taxing authority to the effect that its application will be dealt with in
accordance with the law by the Minister or the corporation included in Schedule
III or IV of the PLTA, as the case may be. Therefore, once the
amount of the payment has been calculated in accordance with the PLTA or the
CCPR, the taxing authority may expect to receive payment within the time limits
prescribed by regulation.
[24] There
is no doubt that in all municipalities in which the federal government or its
agents have a significant presence, the failure to make a PILT which these
municipalities reasonably expect to receive may have considerable negative
consequences.
[25] In
1995, the Joint Technical Committee on Payments in Lieu of Taxes complained that
the federal government was not obliged to comply with the municipalities’ invoicing
schedules for real property taxes and had not adopted a payment timetable of
its own to give municipalities some assurance as to their cash flow. Several
municipalities were running deficits because the due dates for final payments
were not being respected. They then had to make up for these deficits by
seeking provisional financing or by dipping into reserve funds (Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and
Government Services Canada, Report of the Joint Technical Committee on
Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Ottawa, December 28, 1995, at pages 3 and 11. (Chairman: James
Knight)).
[26] I
note that paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the PLTA provide that the
Minister may make regulations respecting the making of an interim payment in
respect of a payment under the PLTA and respecting the recovery of any
overpayments made to a taxing authority, including recovery by way of set-off
against other payments under the PLTA. These last two aspects are effectively
governed by sections 3 and 4 of the IPROPR, on which the respondent relies in
this case. In the case of corporations included in schedules III and IV to the
PLTA, it is the Governor in Council (not the Minister) who has the authority
under paragraphs 9(1)(f) and (g) of the PLTA to make regulations
respecting the payments to be made by these corporations. This aspect is
effectively governed by section 12 of the CCPR.
[27] Moreover,
to give municipal administrations greater stability in terms of budgeting and
taxation, the PLTA and the CCPR were respectively amended in 2000 and 2001 (An
Act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, S.C. 2000, c. 8 and Regulations
Amending Certain Regulations made under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Act and Schedules I to III to that Act, SOR/2001-494 (November 8, 2001)). For example,
paragraph 12(1)(b) of the CCPR specifies that a corporation must make a
payment in lieu of real property taxes (PLRT) or in lieu of frontage or area
tax (PLFAT) within 50 days after receipt of an application for the payment. In
addition, where a corporation is unable to make a final determination of the
amount of a payment, subsection 12(2) of the CCPR provides that the corporation
shall make, within that time, an interim payment that corresponds to the
estimated total payment to be made.
4. Calculation
of the amount of the payment in lieu of real property taxes (PLRT)
[28] Under
paragraph 11(1)(a) of the PLTA, corporations included in Schedule III or
IV of the PLTA shall, if they are exempt from real property taxes, comply with
any regulations made by the Governor in Council under paragraph 9(1)(f)
of the PLTA respecting any payment that they may make in lieu of a real
property tax (PLRT) or a frontage or area tax (PLFAT). In Part I of the CCPR,
which regulates these two types of PILT, the term “corporation” means every
corporation included in Schedule III or IV to the PLTA (section 5 of the CCPR).
[29] More
specifically, section 6 of the CCPR specifies that the PLRT made by a
corporation is made without any condition, in an amount that is not less than
the amount referred to in section 7 of the CCPR. Under subsection 7(1) of
the CCPR, the amount of the PLRT shall not be less than the product of the
following two factors:
(a) the
corporation effective rate in the taxation year applicable to the corporation
property in respect of which the payment may be made; and
(b) the
corporation property value in the taxation year of that corporation property.
[30] Section
2 of the CCPR defines the expressions “corporation effective rate” and
“corporation property value” as follows:
(a) “Corporation
effective rate” is defined as “the rate of real property tax or of frontage or
area tax that a corporation would consider applicable to its corporation
property if that property were taxable property”; and
(b) “Corporation
property value” is defined as “the value that a corporation would consider to
be attributable by an assessment authority to its corporation property, without
regard to any mineral rights or any ornamental, decorative or non-functional
features thereof, as the basis for computing the amount of any real property
tax that would be applicable to that property if it were taxable property”.
[31] Where
the real property tax rate includes school taxes, a special rate calculated
according to paragraphs 7(2)(c) and (d) of the CCPR can be
substituted for the corporation effective rate in paragraph 7(1)(a) of
the CCPR. In addition, under section 9 of the CCPR, there may be deducted from
the payment described in section 7 of the CCPR an amount corresponding to
certain special services provided or financed by the corporation or an amount
equal to any cancellation, reduction or refund in respect of a real property
tax that would be applicable to its corporation property if it were taxable
property.
[32] The
“assessment authority” to which section 2 of the CCPR refers means an authority that has power by or under an Act of Parliament or the
legislature of a province to establish the assessed dimension or assessed value
of real property or immovables (subsection 2(1) of the PLTA). In Quebec, the
competent authority under provincial legislation is the assessor appointed
under the AMT. For the 2003, 2004 and 2005
taxation years, the property value of the properties in issue is therefore the
value entered on the property assessment roll (as corrected, where appropriate,
by the competent provincial authority).
[33] On
this point, I note that the PLTA was amended in 2000 to add section 11.1,
which provides for the appointment of an advisory panel tasked with giving
advice to the Minister in the event that a taxing authority disagrees
with the property value, property dimension or effective rate applicable to any
federal property. The advisory panel may also recommend to the Minister
that a payment be supplemented if it has been unreasonably delayed. In
addition, the CCPR were amended to specify that section 11.1 of the PLTA
applies to a corporation as if the reference to “the Minister” were a reference
to “a corporation” and any reference to “federal property” were a reference to
“corporation property” (section 12.1 CCPR). However, when the tribunal
made the impugned decision, the advisory panel provided for in section 11.1 of
the PLTA had not yet been appointed by the Governor in Council. Normally, the
advisory panel would have been able to take charge of this case and advise the
Minister on the applicable effective rate, since there was at the time a
disagreement with the applicant as to the effective rate applicable to the
corporation properties.
[34] Before
going any further, let us review. Upon application by a taxing authority, a
corporation must first of all determine if this application actually does concern
property subject to a payment and then refer to the property value and to the
applicable effective rate. The product of these two amounts is the amount of
the payment which must be made by the corporation within 50 days following
receipt of the application (sections 2, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the CCPR). Finally, I
note that the adjustments to the effective rate and the possible deductions
from the amount of the payment specified in subsection 7(2) and section 9 of
the CCPR do not apply in this case.
5. Properties
involved in this case
[35] The respondent is a corporation incorporated
under the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11 as amended (the BA), and an
agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
[36] The respondent may acquire any
real or personal property it deems necessary or convenient for carrying out its
objects, and this property belongs to Her Majesty (subsection 47(3), sections
48 and 49 of the BA). It must be presumed that the
properties belonging to Her Majesty are occupied and operated by the respondent
exclusively on behalf of Canada (City
of Halifax v. Halifax Harbour Commissioners, [1935] S.C.R. 215 ; Re the
City of Toronto and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1938] O.W.N.
507 (Ont. C.A.)).
[37] The immovables or real property of
the respondent that are the subject of this dispute are located in the sector
corresponding to the former city of Montréal (Montréal sector), that is: 1400 René
Lévesque Boulevard East; 2120 Pierre Dupuy Avenue and the lot in the Port of
Montréal, which the respondent moved out of in 2004; and the Wolfe lot on the
island of Montréal.
[38] These immovables or real property
are occupied exclusively by the respondent and therefore are not taxable. All these immovables are entered on the property assessment roll as
required by provincial law (sections 31, 55 and 204 of the AMT). As already noted,
the tribunal uses the value entered on the roll as the basis for calculating
the real property tax which would otherwise be applicable to the properties in
question if they were taxable by law. The assessed value of these immovables
ranged from $105 million to $118 million over the period from 2003 to 2005.
[39] On this point, at the hearing
before this Court, the applicant submitted a decision of the ATQ dated July 21, 2006, which held
that the real value of the assessment unit for the immovable located at 1400
René Lévesque Boulevard East to be entered on the roll was $100,000,000 for the
period from January 1, 2004 to January 19,
2004,
and $98,800,000 for the period from January 20, 2004 to December 31, 2006 (Société
Radio-Canada c. Ville de Montréal (July 21, 2006), No. SAI‑M‑105370-0505
(Administrative Tribunal of Québec)).
[40] In the case at bar, the dispute
between the parties concerns the decision of the tribunal to apply in the
respondent’s case an effective real property tax rate different from the one
applicable to non-residential immovables under the applicant’s by-laws.
6. Tax
by-laws of the applicant
[41] In 2003, the applicant made
sweeping changes to its real property tax rates following the municipal mergers
that occurred on the island of Montréal.
[42] For
all fiscal years prior to 2003, the applicant used one general real property
tax rate applicable to all immovables and added a special additional real property
tax (surtax) on non-residential buildings. The applicant’s tax structure also provided
for business, water and services taxes levied directly on occupants of
non-residential immovables carrying out commercial or professional activities
on the premises.
[43] In
the sector corresponding to the former city of Montréal, the general real property tax rate in 2002 was 1.9702, and the tax rate
on non-residential immovables was 0.3348 per $100 of assessment. In 2002, the
business tax rate was 12.99%. For comparison purposes, in 2002, the business tax
generated revenues equivalent to a real property tax rate of 1.6360 per $100 of
assessment. Therefore, in that year, the combined rate for non-residential
immovables (general real property tax, non-residential immovables tax and
business tax equivalent) was 3.9410 per $100 of assessment (2003 budget, table
35 at page 89).
[44] When
it tabled its 2003 budget, the applicant decided to harmonize the tax structure
of the new city of Montréal, opting for a
variable property tax rate system. Among other things, this change in rates
allowed the new city of Montréal to do away with an outdated and inequitable
method of taxation and simplify the management of tax income (see the budget
adopted by Montréal city council on December 18, 2002, 2003 budget, at pages 31-32
and at pages 77 et seq.).
[45] In
practice, this harmonization had the following effects.
[46] First
of all, the applicant abolished the business tax. In 2002, this tax on occupants
of non-residential immovables was levied by only 10 of the 28 former
municipalities. Its repeal in 2003 entailed an increase in the real property
tax applicable to non-residential immovables located in a sector corresponding
to one of the 10 municipalities in question.
[47] In the other
18 municipalities where there was no business tax, there was no noticeable tax
impact. Such was the case with non-residential immovables in the Montréal-Est
sector, where the business tax had been abolished in 1993. In 2002, in the
former city of Montréal‑Est, the general real property tax rate was 1.4878 per $100 of assessment,
while the tax on non-residential immovables was 2.7875 per $100 of assessment.
Therefore, the combined tax rate for non-residential immovables was 4.2753 per
$100 of assessment in 2002 (2003 budget, table 5 at page 89).
[48] Secondly,
the introduction of a variable property tax rate system means that, in 2003,
the revenues from the various real property taxes, such as the tax on
non-residential immovables and the surtax on serviced vacant lots, could no
longer be distinguished from eachother. Therefore, in 2003, the new real
property tax for non-residential immovables in the Montréal sector was at a
rate of 4.1722 per $100 of assessment. In comparison, in the Montréal-Est sector,
this tax was at a rate of 4.2353 per $100 of assessment in 2003 (2003 budget,
table 35, at page 89).
[49] Thirdly,
to ensure an orderly transition, the applicant offered tax subsidy programs to
compensate for some of the shifts in the tax burden brought about by these
changes to the taxation system. To this end, by-laws granting subsidies or tax
credits based on the general property tax that came into force before January
1, 2003, and under which an amount of subsidy was paid after December 31, 2002, must be read as granting a
subsidy based on the basic rate of the variable-rate general property tax
(section 2 of By-law 02-253 of the applicant, entitled By‑law
concerning certain subsidy by-laws).
[50] Fourthly,
according to the applicant’s budget estimates, in 2003, the change in the tax
system allowed approximately $8.1 million in additional revenue to be entered
into the books for PILTs from the federal government (2003 budget, pages 34 and
88). In fact, according to the evidence on the record, the new real property
tax rate set by the applicant in 2003 represents an approximately $7.5 million
increase for the federal government (excluding Crown corporations) in terms of
payments made directly by the Minister. In the case of the respondent, the change
in tax system represents an increase of $2,319,235.79, $2,611,883.54 and
$2,582,969.40 for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively.
[51] To this very
day, the variable-rate property tax system is still in force, and the applicant
has used it in every fiscal year since 2003, including 2004 and 2005, the years
which are the subject of this review. As a result, every year, the application
has adopted a tax by-law requiring that a variable-rate general property tax be
levied on and collected for every taxable immovable that is entered on the
property assessment roll and located in one of the sectors described in section
149 of the Charter.
[52] The properties in question are in
the sector identified in by-laws 02-249, 03-201 and 04-166 under the name of
the former local municipality listed in section 5 of the Charter, in this case,
the former city of Montréal (Montréal sector).
[53] In the case at bar, section 3, item 13 of the By-law concerning taxes (fiscal
2004) (By‑law 02-249), the general property tax rates applied in
2003 to the assessed value of the immovables concerned in the Montréal sector
were as follows:
(a) non-residential
immovables: 4.1722%
(b) immovables
containing six or more dwelling units: 2.0992%
(c) serviced
vacant lots: 3.9044%
(d) residual:
1.9522%.
[54] Under
section 3, item 13 of the By-law concerning taxes (fiscal
2004) (By‑law 03-201), the general property tax rates applied in
2004 to the assessed value of the immovables concerned in the Montréal sector
were as follows:
(a) non-residential
immovables: 4.0547%
(b) immovables
containing six or more dwelling units: 1.9917%
(c) serviced
vacant lots: 3.6064%
(d) residual:
1.8032%.
[55] Finally,
under section 3, item 13 of the By-law concerning taxes (fiscal
2005) (By‑law 04‑166), the general property tax rates
applied in 2005 to the assessed value of the immovables concerned in the
Montréal sector were as follows:
(a) non-residential
immovables: 3.8812%
(b) immovables
containing six or more dwelling units: 1.8455%
(c) serviced
vacant lots: 3.2546%
(d) residual:
1.6273%.
[56] However,
since 2004, the applicant has levied and collected a special variable-rate
water tax on every immovable entered on the property assessment roll. In 2004
and 2005, the rate applicable to non-residential immovables was 0.04% and
0.0720% respectively (section 4, item 1 of By-law 03-201 and section 5, item 1
of By-law 04-166). The respondent does not contest that this special tax
constitutes a form of property tax.
7. Decisions
rendered by the tribunal in 2003, 2004 and 2005
[57] In
January 2003, 2004 and 2005, Diane Loiseau, a revenue analyst working for the
applicant, sent the respondent a number of PILT application under the PLTA and
the CCPR for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 taxation years in respect of the
respondent’s immovables or real property entered on the property assessment
roll (the 2003, 2004 and 2005 applications).
2003 Taxation Year
[58] The 2003 application totals $4,357,107.73
and was based on the non-residential immovables rate of 4.1722% per $100 of
assessment, which was applied to the value of the respondent’s immovables
entered on the real property assessment roll. The respondent paid this amount
in two instalments of $2,178,553.87, in March and September 2003.
[59] On November 25, 2003, an
additional PILT application totalling $15,777.53 was sent to the respondent
following changes made to a building occupied by the respondent during the 2002
and 2003 taxation years. In March 2004, the applicant claimed a $46,704.97 supplement
in lieu of interest in connection with the second instalment, which it claimed was
late. According to the applicant, the respondent did not pay these two amounts.
2004
Taxation Year
[60] The 2004 application totals
$4,812,459.96 and was based on a combined rate of 4.0947% per $100 of assessment
applied to the value of the respondent’s immovables entered on the property
assessment roll. The rate indicated by the applicant in its 2004 application is
composed of the non-residential immovables rate of 4.0547%, plus the special
water tax rate of 0.04% (section 3, item 13 and section 4, item 1 of By-law
03-201).
[61] The respondent made a first
payment of $2,406,229.98 in February 2004. Subsequently, on March 31, 2005, following
some changes made to the property assessment roll, Ms. Loiseau adjusted the
total amount claimed for the 2004 taxation year to $4,749,715.89, which reduced
the total amount claimed for the second instalment to $2,343,485.91. According
to the applicant, the respondent did not pay the second instalment.
2005
Taxation Year
[62] The 2005 application totals
$4,636,645.03 and was based on a combined rate of 3.9532% per $100 of assessment
applied to the value of the respondent’s immovables entered on the property
assessment roll. The rate indicated by the applicant in its 2005 application
was composed of the non-residential immovable rate of 3.8812%, plus the special
water tax rate of 0.0720% (section 3, item 13 and section 5, item 2 of By-law
04-166). Subsequently, on March 31, 2005, following some changes made to the
property assessment roll, Ms. Loiseau adjusted the total amount claimed for the
year 2005 to $4,530,367.20.
[63] This being said, in the impugned
decision, the tribunal retroactively reduced the amount of the payments for
2003 and 2004 to $2,037,931.94 and $2,137,832.35 respectively. In addition, it calculated
the amount of the PLRT payable by the respondent for 2005 to be $1,947,397.80,
which is the amount claimed in the 2005 application. On this basis, the
respondent claims $640,175.63 as an overpayment received by the applicant (that
is, $6,763,337.72 minus $6,123,162.09).
8. The
present application and related litigation
[64] The reasons given by the tribunal
to justify the retroactive revision in March 2005 of the effective real
property tax rates, and thus of the PLRTs already made in 2003 and 2004, are found
in a motion for declaratory judgment filed by the respondent in the Superior
Court in March 2004 and amended in March 2005. Essentially, the respondent is
of the opinion that the real property tax rates for the years 2003, 2004 and
2005 include a portion related to the former business tax repealed in 2003.
[65] Given that the respondent was not
legally required to make a PLBOT, it was decided that an equivalent amount
would be subtracted from the effective rate. On this basis, in her affidavit
dated November
22, 2005,
Ms. Powers explains that the respondent is subject only to the rates of 1.9522,
1.8032 and 1.6273 per $100 of assessment under section 3, paragraph 1, item 13(d)
of by-laws 02‑249, 03-201 and 04-166. These are the rates applicable to
the “residual” class.
[66] On February 1, 2006, the Court
dismissed the respondent’s motion seeking a declaration that the Court does not
have jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review and, in the
alternative, the dismissal of the application on the ground that it was not
filed within the time limit prescribed by law, or a stay of proceedings pending
the Superior Court’s ruling on the respondent’s motion for declaratory judgment
(City of Montréal v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006 FC 113).
[67] Although this application for
judicial review only concerns the decision rendered by the tribunal in March
2005 for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 taxation years, it must be noted that the
applicant filed another application for judicial review, in docket No. T-761-06,
against a decision of the tribunal rendered in April 2006 for the 2006 taxation
year.
[68] A brief analysis of the notice of
application filed by the applicant in T-761-06 shows that once again the
dispute mainly concerns the effective rate applicable to the respondent’s
properties. The notice of application also mentions a review procedure before
the ATQ undertaken by the respondent in April 2005 under the AMT to change
the value of this property as entered on the assessment roll. However, since
the filing of the application for judicial review in T-761-06, the ATQ rendered
a decision on this issue on July 21, 2006, such that the effective value of the
respondent’s properties for the period from January 1,
2004
to December 31, 2006 no longer appears to be in dispute.
[69] Following a direction issued on July 25, 2006, by the
undersigned justice, the parties agreed that the application for judicial
review filed in T-761-06 be stayed pending a final decision in this file. The
Court gave effect to the wills of the parties’ agreement and ordered a stay of
proceedings in T-761-06 on August 4, 2006.
[70] It
was therefore on this basis that this application was heard by the Court in
January and February 2007. Consequently, the Court expects the parties to apply
the principles set out in the present decision to the other related files in
which there is a dispute between them on the matter of the effective real
property tax rate or about the issue of compensation (set-off). This being said,
a party may undertake or continue any application for judicial review before
the Court and any proceeding before the advisory panel, the Administrative
Tribunal of Québec or any other body or tribunal having jurisdiction in
connection with any dispute for any given taxation year concerning property value,
property dimension, claims that a payment should be supplemented because of unreasonable
delay, or any amendment to an entry on the property assessment roll.
9.
Issues and positions of the parties
[71] The
issue to be decided today is whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, breached
a principle of procedural fairness, acted unlawfully, or otherwise rendered a
decision based on an error in law or an erroneous finding of fact made in a
perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it:
(a) by
determining that the property tax rate that would be applicable to the
respondent’s property, if it were taxable property, corresponds to the rate applicable
to the “residual” category, rather than the rate applicable to the
“non-residential immovables” category, these rates being set by the applicant’s
by-laws (the effective real property tax rate issue);
(b) by
retroactively reducing the amounts already paid to the applicant by the
respondent as payments in lieu of real property tax (PLRT) for the 2003 and
2004 taxation years, and by claiming $640,175.63 as an overpayment for the year
2005 (the compensation issue).
[72] For
the purposes of the hearing, this application was joined with the application
made by the applicant in T-795-04, in which the legality of a decision rendered
in March 2004 by a manager of the Montréal Port Authority is also the subject
of an application for judicial review before this Court.
[73] The
oral and written submissions made by counsel for the applicant in both files,
on the one hand, and by the respondent in this file and the respondent in the
other, tend to overlap or complement each other. Therefore, as regards the
effective real property tax rate, it seems to me to be easier to group the
various submissions together and apply them mutatis mutandis to the
particular situation in each of these two files.
(a) The effective
real property tax rate issue
[74] First
of all, the applicant and the respondent do not agree on the effective real
property tax rate that would be applicable to the non-taxable properties in
question if they were taxable for the purposes of calculating the amount due under
the PLTA and the CCPR for each of the taxation years in question.
[75] The
applicant submits that by not using the real property tax rate usually levied
on owners of non-residential immovables, the tribunal acted arbitrarily and
capriciously, and that its decision is based on an error in law and is contrary
to the law and the obligations imposed on the respondent by the PLTA and the
CCPR.
[76] The
applicant submits that the respondent must comply to section 7 of the CCPR,
which provides that the PLRT shall not be less than the product of the
corporation effective rate and the corporation property value in the taxation
year of that corporation property. In this case, the only adjustments allowed
are those authorized by regulation at subsection 7(2) and section 9 of the
CCPR. Furthermore, under section 2 of the CCPR, the “corporation effective
rate” is either the real property tax rate or the frontage or area tax rate applicable
to the corporation property if it were taxable. Therefore, the applicant submits
that the respondent had no choice but to apply the rates applicable to
non-residential properties entered on the assessment roll, as set out in the
applicant’s by-laws.
[77] In
contrast, the respondent argues that it has the discretion to choose a different
real property tax rate and to make retroactive adjustments to the PLRT for the
2003 and 2004 taxation years while not having to make a PLRT for the 2005
taxation year. Accordingly, the respondent submits that the expression “that a
corporation would consider applicable” in section 2 of the CCPR must be
interpreted to give it such discretion in determining the applicable effective
rate.
[78] The
respondent submits that in determining the applicable real property tax rate,
it is not in any way supplanting the taxing authority; rather, it is exercising
the authority specifically granted to it under the PLTA and the CCPR to
determine the amount of the PLRT payable to the applicant. Since only those
corporations included in Schedule IV to the PLTA are legally required to make a
payment in lieu of the business occupancy tax (PLBOT), the respondent submits
that it did not act arbitrarily or in a capricious manner by not using the real
property equivalent of the former business tax, especially considering that it
has a constitutional immunity (Re Exported Natural Gas
Tax,
supra).
[79] Finally, The
respondent also submits that if one accepts the applicant’s argument that a
Crown corporation does not have any discretion as to the determination of the
effective rate, this in a way creates a right to payment, which is directly
contrary to sections 3 and 15 of the PLTA, as well as section 6 of the CCPR. To
sum up, if the respondent cannot deduct the real property equivalent of the
former business occupancy tax from the amount of the PLRT,, this would strike
down the CCPR or render them inapplicable, since only the corporations included
in Schedule IV to the PLTA are legally obliged to make a PLBOT.
(b) The compensation
issue
[80] As explained in the preceding, on
March
31, 2005,
the respondent set up “compensation” (set-off) with respect to the instalments
already paid in 2004, thus refusing to make the second instalment for 2004, the
two instalments for 2005 and payments for various amounts claimed by the applicant
for the 2003 taxation year.
10. Standard of
judicial review
[90] Under sections 2 and 18 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended, (the FCA), this Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to review the impugned decision (see City of Montréal v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006 FC 113 and the case law cited in that
decision). Parliament has already specified in paragraph 18.1(4)(c) of
the FCA that if the Federal Court is satisfied that a tribunal “erred in law in
making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of
the record”, it may review that decision or order. At first glance, this seems
to suggest that standard of review that applies to errors of law is correctness.
However, when an error of fact is alleged to have been made by a federal board,
commission or other tribunal, paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the FCA
requires a demonstration that it “based its decision or order on an erroneous
finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard
for the material before it”. This seems to suggest that where errors of fact
are concerned, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness.
[92] In
the case of the impugned decision of the tribunal, these four factors lead to
the conclusion that the applicable standard of review is correctness.
First factor
[93] Under
section 3 of the PLTA, the Minister may make a PLRT out of the Consolidated Revenue
Fund in respect of federal properties not administered by a corporation
included in schedules III and IV to the PLTA, whereas the corporations included
in schedules III and IV of the PLTA themselves process the applications for
payment sent to them by the taxing authorities. In both cases, the Minister or
the corporation has jurisdiction ratione materiae.
[94] In
this regard, neither the PLTA nor the CCPR contains any privative clause or
provides for a right of appeal from a decision rendered by the Minister or the
corporations included in Schedule III or IV to the PLTA. Accordingly, this
first factor is neutral in the analysis of the degree of deference required.
Second factor
[95] As
far as the expertise of the tribunal in this case is concerned, this factor
favours a low degree of deference.
[96] In the
case at bar, the Minister or the corporations included in schedules III and IV to
the PLTA are not a “specialized tribunal” in the usual sense. The “decisions”
which the Minister or the corporations included in schedules III and IV to the
PLTA render are in fact made by managers whose personal knowledge and expertise
in municipal taxation matters may vary considerably.
[97] I
note that under section 11.1 of the PLTA and section 12.1 of the CCPR, the
Minister or the corporation may request non-binding advice in case of a
disagreement with the taxing authority about, inter alia, the property
value or effective rate. The members of the advisory panel are
appointed by the Governor in Council and have a specialized jurisdiction. They serve
during good behaviour for a set term and must have relevant training or
experience. The appointment of such an advisory panel seems to suggest that,
from an institutional standpoint, the Minister and Crown corporations have
relatively little or less expertise than the members of the advisory panel do,
especially where questions of property values or effective rates are concerned.
[98] However,
the tribunal in question and the advisory panel are not in a better position
than this Court to answer the questions of jurisdiction and of law disputed by the
parties.
Third factor
[99] The purpose
of the PLTA is another factor in favour of a low degree of deference. Although
the purpose of the PLTA is the fair and equitable administration of PILTs, in
practice, their calculation and payment are subject to certain statutory or
regulatory conditions, which leaves little practical discretion to the tribunal
in question, or for that matter to the Minister or Crown corporations. However,
every PILT application must be studied individually by the tribunal.
Accordingly, in this case, it cannot be said that the decision in question
raises a “polycentric” issue which would require the weighing of opposing
interests.
Fourth factor
[100] Finally,
the nature of the issue is the most important factor in this case.
[101] The dispute
between the applicant and the respondent concerns above all the determination
of the effective real property tax rate which is to be used as the basis for
calculating the amount of the PLRT payable by the respondent to the applicant.
The tribunal claims the discretion to replace the real property tax rate which
is usually payable by other owners of non-residential immovables with a
different rate unique to the respondent. This is essentially a jurisdictional
issue.
[102] The issue
of whether or not the tax levied by the taxing authority is a real property tax
is a question of mixed law and fact.
[103] The
issue of whether tribunal may subsequently reduce the amount of a PLRT to be
made for a given taxation year on the ground that, in the tribunal’ opinion,
the amount of a PLRT already made for a previous taxation year was too high is
also a jurisdictional issue.
[104] In
all these cases, the Court will have to interpret the act and regulations in
question to determine their exact scope, and this favours the standard of
correctness.
[105] Where
the standard of correctness applies, the Court may undertake its own
reasoning process to arrive at the result it judges correct.
This is what the undersigned did in this case. After analysing the applicable
federal statutes and regulations and thoroughly reviewing the evidence on the record
and the facts on which the tribunal based its decision, I conclude that the impugned
decision of the tribunal must be set aside in part. In my opinion, the decision
is contrary to law or otherwise erroneous in law.
[106] First
of all, the jurisdiction granted to the tribunal under the CCPR to determine
the effective rate must be characterized. The respondent is not in the same
situation as an ordinary taxpayer who receives a municipal tax bill. As a
physical or legal person, the taxpayer must pay the specified amount upon
receipt of the tax bill. This amount is a debt owed to the municipality, and if
the taxpayer does not pay it, the municipality may institute legal proceedings
to recover it. This is not possible in the case at bar, because in
principle the PLTA does not confer any right to a payment.
[107] This
being said, when it makes a payment, as explained above, the respondent is
nevertheless legally required to comply with the regulations enacted by the
Governor in Council under paragraph 9(1)(f) of the PLTA. Under
subsection 7(1) of the CCPR, the amount of the PLRT made by a corporation included
in schedules III and IV of the PLTA must not be less that the product of the
following two factors:
(a) the
corporation effective rate in the taxation year applicable to the corporation
property in respect of which the payment may be made; and
(b) the
corporation property value in the taxation year of that corporation property.
[108] However,
section 2 of the CCPR specifies that the “corporation effective rate” is the
rate of real property tax or of frontage or area tax “that a corporation would
consider applicable” to its property if that property were taxable.
[109] The
respondent submits that by using the expression “that a corporation would
consider applicable”, the Governor in Council intended to give Crown
corporations sweeping discretion in this area. Therefore, the respondent could
ignore the real property tax rate applicable to other owners of taxable
non-residential immovables and choose a real property tax rate which excludes
the tax equivalent of the former business occupancy tax abolished by the
applicant in 2003.
[110] I do
not think that the use of the term “that a corporation would consider
applicable” in the definition of “corporation effective rate” in section 2 of
the CCPR confers the power to ignore the real property tax rate which usually
applies to non-residential immovables. In my opinion, the use of the expression
“that a corporation would consider applicable” simply reflects the fact that it
is the corporation which determines the effective real property tax rate by
referring to the real property tax rate prescribed by the taxing authority. If the
Governor in Council had intended to grant the absolute discretion which the
respondent claims with respect to determining the effective rate, he could have
done so by using much broader terms, such as “the rate it considers to be reasonable”.
[111] It
goes without saying that the tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction within the
limits of the law. If the discretion granted to the respondent’s manager is to
be discussed here, I would say that it is a “bound” discretion. Accordingly,
the tribunal cannot ignore the real property tax rate which would otherwise
apply to the respondent’s property if it were taxable property. The definition
of “corporation effective rate” in the CCPR must be read in its entirety. In short, what must
be determined is the real property tax rate “that a corporation would consider
applicable to its corporation property if that property were taxable
property”.
[112] The
immovables and real property of the respondent are not taxable. If they were
taxable, they would then fall within the category of non-residential
immovables. For the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, the general real property tax
rate applicable to non-residential immovables located in the Montréal sector
was 4.172%,
4.0547%, and 3.8812% respectively.
[113] I
agree that these rates represent a significant increase of the real property
tax rate in comparison with previous years, since in 2002 the general real
property tax rate was 1.9702% and the tax rate for non-residential immovables
was 0.3384% in the former city of Montréal. This increase is
explained by the repeal in 2003 of the former business tax. This is a
legislative choice which belongs exclusively to the applicant, and the validity
of this choice is not directly challenged in these proceedings.
[114] On
this point, it is useful to refer to section 2 of the PLTA, which defines “real
property tax” as meaning a tax of general application:
(a) levied
by a taxing authority on owners of real property or immovables or, if the owner
is exempt from the tax, on lessees or occupiers of real property or immovables,
other than those lessees or occupiers exempt by law, and
(b) computed
by applying a rate to all or part of the assessed value of taxable property.
[115] I
note that in Germain v. City of Montréal, [1995] R.J.Q. 2313, affd
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 144, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the surtax levied by
the respondent on non-residential immovables in Montréal was actually a direct
tax and could not be considered to be an indirect tax simply because the owner might
pass on the cost of the tax to a lessee. The Court stated the following at page 2322:
[translation]
The surtax on non-residential immovables
meets the criteria of a real property tax. It is levied on an immovable, must
be paid by the owner, is set on the basis of the value of the immovable, and constitutes
a charge on the owner.
[116] Since
2003, the applicant has chosen to apply a tax system which uses a variable-rate
general real property tax. Under this system, a different real property tax
rate applies to each of the four categories to which the assessment units
belong. These categories are as follows: (1) non‑residential
immovables; (2) immovables containing six or more dwelling units; (3) serviced
vacant lots; (4) residual.
[117] In the
case at bar, the variable-rate general real property tax meets the criteria of
a real property tax as set out in Germain: it is levied on immovables
entered on the applicant’s assessment roll; it is levied on the basis of the value
appearing on the assessment role; and, finally, it is payable by the owner. The fact
that some rates were increased to recover the tax equivalent of the former
business occupancy tax—which incidentally had already been repealed by a large
number of taxing authorities on the island of Montréal, including the former
city of Montréal‑Est, before the municipal mergers—does not change the eminently
“real property” character of the new variable-rate tax. In fact, even the Minister
uses the real property tax rate applicable to non-residential immovables, as
set out in the applicant’s by-laws, when calculating the amount of the PLRT
payable under section 3 of the PLTA.
[118] I reject
any argument to the effect that the payment of the tax equivalent, in the form
of a PLRT, of a variable-rate real property tax based on the category of
immovables applicable in this case would be contrary to the purpose of the PLTA
and the provisions of the CCPR. The various constitutional arguments made by
the respondent do not apply in this case.
[119] In this case, the tribunal chose the
rate for immovables belonging to the “residual” class, which more or less
corresponds to the former “base rate”. I am of the opinion not only that the
impugned decision is contrary to law and erroneous in law, but also that the tribunal acted in a
perverse or capricious manner in opting to use the “base” or “residual” rate,
such that no matter what standard of review applies in this case, the final result
is the same.
[120] Needless to say, the “residual” class
includes immovables containing five dwelling units or less. The immovables in
question do not meet this last criterion. Consequently, it is the rate for
non-residential immovables that would apply to the respondent’s properties if
they were non-taxable.
[121] According to the evidence on
record, by reducing the effective real property tax rate by half, the decision
of the tribunal allowed the respondent to save, at the applicant’s expense, the
following amounts:
(a) for the year 2003: $2,319,235.79
(b) for the year 2004: $2,611,
883.54
(c) for the year 2005: $2,582,969.40
Furthermore, the respondent’s March 2005 decision
to retroactively reduce the PLRT for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years and to
not make any PLRT for the 2005 taxation year is contrary to section 6 of
the CCPR and to the very purpose of the PLTA, which provides for fair and
equitable payments to municipalities.
[122] Therefore, the Court is warranted
in intervening and setting aside the impugned decision rendered by the tribunal
in March 2005.
12. The compensation
issue
[123] There is nothing to indicate that
when the respondent made payments to the applicant in March and September 2003
and in March 2004, the tribunal was, in fact, unable to make a final determination of the
amounts of the
PLRTs that the respondent would have to make to the applicant
for each of the taxation years in question. The letters from Lise Powers that
accompanied the payment cheques are rather terse and simply state that the
payments in question should not be construed as an admission by the respondent
as to the validity of the applications for payment made by the applicant. The
respondent did not make any PLRT for the 2005 taxation year and instead claimed
$640,175.63 as an overpayment.
[124] When considering the legality of a
decision, the Court usually looks to the evidence before the decision-maker at
that time. On this point, the impugned decision, the content of which is reflected
in the motion to institute proceedings in the Superior Court dated March 16, 2005, indicates
that, in respect of the Port of Montréal lot, a real property value of
$3,100 was used to arrive at the amount of $2,037,931.44 for the 2003 taxation
year.
[125] However, in her affidavit signed
and dated November
22, 2005,
Ms. Powers used a real property value of $246,800 in respect of the Port of
Montréal lot to arrive at an amount of $2,043,477.00 for the year 2003. Although
Ms. Powers did not make any comment on this point, this real property value was
submitted by the applicant to the respondent in its letter dated November 25,
2003, which is the basis of the supplemental application for $15,777.53. Thus,
according to the calculations in the affidavit of Ms. Powers, the overpayment
for 2003 was $634,630.57 and not $640,175.63.
[126] This being said, in her affidavit,
Ms. Powers also mentions the calculations made by an expert who was hired by
the respondent, but whose report was not admitted in evidence by the Court. He arrived
at an amount of $6,592,489 for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. Ms. Powers added
to this the amounts claimed by the applicant for what is commonly called the
“blue tax” (taxe bleue), whose purpose is to create a dedicated fund for
water supply infrastructure. Consequently, if the evidence subsequent to the
impugned decision and the respondent’s own admission are taken into account,
the amount of $640,175.63 claimed under the supposed authority of section 4 of
the CCPR as an overpayment is incorrect and should be $42,294.98 instead.
[127] In any event, considering the
conclusion which I reached above, and because the respondent could not legally disregard
the real property tax rate generally applicable to owners of non-residential
immovables, I conclude that the applicant could not retroactively revise its
previous decisions for the years 2003 and 2004 or legally set up compensation
in respect of the payments to be made for the second half of 2004 and all of 2005.
[128] Thus, the March 2005 decision of
the tribunal is invalid and unlawful. As a result, the payments made in whole
or in part to the applicant under sections 6 and 12 of the CCPR were unlawfully
or unreasonably delayed by the respondent. Without determining whether or not
section 4 of the CCPR applies, I conclude that the conditions for invoking this
provision have not been met in this case by the respondent and that, on the
basis of the evidence on record, there was no overpayment in 2003, 2004 or
2005.
13. Conclusion
and remedies
[129] For
the reasons given above, the application for judicial review is allowed.
[130] In closing,
it is important to clarify a few points regarding the remedies available to the
Court under sections 18 and 18.1 of the FCA. On the one hand, the Court does
not have jurisdiction to order the respondent or the tribunal to pay the
applicant any amount of money whatsoever, including any interest at the legal rate.
On the other hand, the respondent acts as a federal board, commission or other tribunal
when it makes a decision, takes action, or makes a payment under the PLTA and
the CCPR. Whenever such a decision, action or payment is contrary to law, the
Court has jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment against the respondent
and order it to comply with the law, as well as to declare the impugned
decision to be invalid or unlawful and refer the matter back to the respondent for
determination in accordance with such directions as the Court considers to be
appropriate (subsections 18(1) and 18.1(3) of the FCA).
[131] Therefore,
it would be inappropriate to specify in the accompanying order the exact
amounts of the PLRTs which the applicant could reasonably expect to receive
from the respondent for 2003, 2004 and 2005. It is enough to simply quash the impugned
decision and refer the matter back to the respondent so that the exact amounts
may be calculated by the tribunal in compliance with the Act and the applicable
regulations.
[132] It
would also be inappropriate to make a final ruling on the issue of whether the
tribunal has the authority to supplement the amounts calculated pursuant to
section 7 of the CCPR to take into consideration the fact that the final
payment was not made within the time limit prescribed by regulation. This issue was
not debated before the Court by counsel for the parties. On this point, I
simply note that a corporation must make a payment in lieu of real property tax
(PLRT) within 50 days after receipt of an
application for the payment. The amounts which the applicant could reasonably have
expected to receive were not paid by the respondent within the time limit prescribed
by regulation. Accordingly, the applicant should be allowed to adduce any
evidence and make any additional submissions to the tribunal about the exact
amounts to be paid as a PLRT, including the legal authority for and appropriateness
of granting a supplement for the delay in payment.
[133] Following
submissions by counsel, there will be no order as to costs.
ORDER
THE COURT
DECLARES AND ORDERS that:
1.
This
application for judicial review is allowed in part.
2.
For
every taxation year after 2002, the effective rate applicable to the
respondent’s properties is the general real property tax rate applicable
to non-residential immovables in the sector or sectors where the respondent’s properties
are located, to which is added, where appropriate, the special water tax
rate applicable to immovables in that class.
3.
For
every taxation year after 2002, the respondent must not exclude from the
calculation of the effective rate, or deduct from the payment in lieu of real
property tax, the tax equivalent of the former business tax repealed by the
applicant in 2002.
4.
The
impugned decision rendered by the tribunal in March 2005 is invalid and
unlawful, and the respondent could not make adjustments in the amounts of $2,319,235.79
for the year 2003, $2,611,883.54 for the year 2004 and $2,582,969.40 for the
year 2005, nor could it claim under section 4 of the Interim Payments
and Recovery of Overpayments Regulations (IPROR) the amount of $640,175.63
as an overpayment, or any other amount calculated by the tribunal further to
the impugned decision.
5.
The
impugned decision of the tribunal rendered in March 2005 is set aside, and the
matter is referred back to the respondent so that the tribunal may render a new
decision and so that the respondent may make a payment in lieu of real property
tax (PLRT) pursuant to the Act and the applicable regulations within 50 days
after the expiry of the time limit specified in paragraph 8 or after the date
on which the applicant advises the respondent that no additional submissions
will be made or evidence adduced under paragraph 7, whichever deadline or event
comes first, as the case may be.
6.
The
new decision of the tribunal and the amount of any PLRT made by the respondent shall
be in accordance with the following declarations:
(a) The applicable
effective rate for the year 2003 is 4.1722% per $100 of assessment applied to
the value of the respondent’s immovables entered on the property assessment
roll;
(b) The applicable
effective rate for the year 2004 is 4.0947% per $100 of assessment applied to
the value of the respondent’s immovables entered on the property assessment
roll;
(c) The applicable
effective rate for the year 2005 is 3.9532% per $100 of assessment applied on
the value of the respondent’s immovables entered on the property assessment
roll;
(d) The only
rate substitutions or payment deductions authorized are those expressly set out
in sections 7 and 9 of the Crown Corporation Payments Regulations
(CCPR).
7.
Before
rendering a new decision, the tribunal must allow the applicant to adduce any additional
evidence and make any additional submissions concerning the exact amount of the
payment to be made under section 6 of the CCPR, including the legal authority
for and appropriateness of granting any supplements for delayed payments, where
applicable.
8.
The
additional evidence or submissions mentioned in paragraph 7 may be filed with
the tribunal within 30 days after the date of this order.
9.
There
will be no order as to costs.
“Luc
Martineau”
Certified
true translation
Michael
Palles
ANNEX
Payments
in Lieu of Taxes Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. M-13
|
2. (1) In this
Act,
"taxation
year"
«année
d’imposition »
"taxation
year" means the fiscal year of a taxing authority;
"assessment
authority"
«autorité
évaluatrice »
"assessment
authority" means an authority that has power by or under an Act of
Parliament or the legislature of a province to establish the assessed
dimension or assessed value of real property or immovables;
"taxing
authority"
«autorité
taxatrice »
"taxing
authority" means
(a) any
municipality, province, municipal or provincial board, commission,
corporation or other authority that levies and collects a real property tax
or a frontage or area tax pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a
province,
(b) any
council of a band within the meaning of the Indian Act that levies and
collects a real property tax or a frontage or area tax pursuant to an Act of
Parliament,
(c) any band
within the meaning of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, chapter 18 of
the Statutes of Canada, 1984, that levies and collects a tax on interests in
Category IA land or Category IA-N land as defined in that Act,
(d) the
Council within the meaning of the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act,
chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986, if it levies and collects a real
property tax or a frontage or area tax in respect of Sechelt lands, as
defined in that Act,
(e) a first
nation named in Schedule II to the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act,
if it levies and collects a real property tax or a frontage or area tax in
respect of settlement land, as defined in that Act, or in respect of lands in
which an interest is transferred or recognized under section 21 of that Act,
(f) the
Nisga’a Nation or a Nisga’a Village, as defined in the Nisga’a Final
Agreement given effect by the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, if it
levies and collects a real property tax or a frontage or area tax in respect
of Nisga’a Lands, as defined in that Agreement,
(g) the Tlicho
Government, as defined in section 2 of the Tlicho Land Claims and
Self-Government Act, if it levies and collects a real property tax or a
frontage or area tax in respect of Tlicho lands, as defined in section 2 of
the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act; or
(h) the
Nunatsiavut Government, as defined in section 2 of the Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement Act, or an Inuit Community Government, as defined in
section 1.1.1 of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement approved by that
Act, if it levies and collects a real property tax or a frontage or area tax
in respect of Labrador Inuit Lands or Community Lands, as defined in section
1.1.1 of that Agreement, as the case may be.
"real
property tax"
« impôt
foncier »
"real
property tax" means a tax of general application to real property or
immovables or any class of them that is
(a) levied by
a taxing authority on owners of real property or immovables or, if the owner
is exempt from the tax, on lessees or occupiers of real property or
immovables, other than those lessees or occupiers exempt by law, and
(b) computed
by applying a rate to all or part of the assessed value of taxable property;
"department"
«ministères »
"department"
means
(a) any
department named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act,
(a.1) any
division or branch of the federal public administration named in Schedule I.1
to that Act,
(a.2) any
commission under the Inquiries Act designated as a department for the
purposes of the Financial Administration Act,
(b) any corporation
established by or under an Act of Parliament or performing a function on
behalf of the Government of Canada included in Schedule I to this Act;
"Minister"
«ministre »
"Minister"
means the Minister of Public Works and Government Services;
"federal
property"
«propriété
fédérale »
"federal
property" means, subject to subsection (3),
(a) real
property and immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are under the administration of a minister of the
Crown,
(b) real
property and immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are, by
virtue of a lease to a corporation included in Schedule III or IV, under the
management, charge and direction of that corporation,
(c) immovables
held under emphyteusis by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are under the administration of a minister of the
Crown,
(d) a building
owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that is under the administration of a
minister of the Crown and that is situated on tax exempt land owned by a
person other than Her Majesty in right of Canada or administered and
controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province, and
(e) real
property and immovables occupied or used by a minister of the Crown and
administered and controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province;
"taxable
property"
«propriété
imposable »
"taxable
property" means real property and immovables in respect of which a
person may be required by a taxing authority to pay a real property tax or a
frontage or area tax;
"effective
rate"
«taux effectif
»
"effective
rate" means the rate of real property tax or of frontage or area tax
that, in the opinion of the Minister, would be applicable to any federal
property if that property were taxable property;
"business
occupancy tax"
«taxe
d’occupation
commerciale »
"business
occupancy tax" means a tax levied on occupants in respect of their use
or occupation of real property or immovables for the purpose of or in
connection with a business;
"property
value"
«valeur effective »
"property
value" means the value that, in the opinion of the Minister, would be
attributable by an assessment authority to federal property, without regard
to any mineral rights or any ornamental, decorative or non-functional
features thereof, as the basis for computing the amount of any real property
tax that would be applicable to that property if it were taxable property;
"assessed
value"
«valeur
fiscale »
"assessed
value" means the value established for any real property or immovable by
an assessment authority for the purpose of computing a real property tax;
(2) For the
purposes of the definition “taxing authority” in subsection (1), where one
authority collects a real property tax or a frontage or area tax that is
levied by another authority, the authority that collects the tax shall be
deemed to be the authority that levies and collects the tax.
…
2.1 The
purpose of this Act is to provide for the fair and equitable administration
of payments in lieu of taxes.
3. (1) The
Minister may, on receipt of an application in a form provided or approved by
the Minister, make a payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a taxing
authority applying for it
(a) in lieu of
a real property tax for a taxation year, and
(b) in lieu of
a frontage or area tax
in respect of
federal property situated within the area in which the taxing authority has
the power to levy and collect the real property tax or the frontage or area
tax.
(1.1) If the
Minister is of the opinion that a payment under subsection (1) or part of one
has been unreasonably delayed, the Minister may supplement the payment.
…
4. (1) Subject
to subsections (2) and (3) and 5(1) and (2), a payment referred to in
paragraph 3(1)(a) shall not exceed the product of
(a) the
effective rate in the taxation year applicable to the federal property in
respect of which the payment may be made, and
(b) the
property value in the taxation year of that federal property.
…
9. (1) The
Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and
provisions of this Act and, without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, may make regulations
(f) respecting
any payment that may be made in lieu of a real property tax or a frontage or
area tax by any corporation included in Schedule III or IV and, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, providing that any payment that may
be made shall be determined on a basis at least equivalent to that provided
in this Act;
(g) respecting
any payment that may be made in lieu of a business occupancy tax by every
corporation included in Schedule IV;
10. The
Minister may make regulations
(a)
establishing a form of application for a payment under this Act;
(b) respecting
the making of an interim payment in respect of a payment under this Act; and
(c) respecting
the recovery of any overpayments made to a taxing authority, including
recovery by way of set-off against other payments under this Act to the
taxing authority.
11. (1)
Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made
thereunder,
(a) every
corporation included in Schedule III or IV shall, if it is exempt from real
property tax, comply with any regulations made under paragraph 9(1)(f)
respecting any payment that it may make in lieu of a real property tax or a
frontage or area tax; and
(b) every corporation
included in Schedule IV shall, if it is exempt from business occupancy tax,
comply with any regulations made under paragraph 9(1)(g) respecting
any payment that it may make in lieu of a business occupancy tax.
…
11.1 (1) The
Governor in Council shall appoint an advisory panel of at least two members
from each province and territory with relevant knowledge or experience to
hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding three years, which
term may be renewed for one or more further terms. The Governor in Council
shall name one of the members as Chairperson.
(1.1) A member
appointed under subsection (1) may be removed for cause by the Governor in
Council.
(2) The
advisory panel shall give advice to the Minister in the event that a taxing
authority disagrees with the property value, property dimension or effective
rate applicable to any federal property, or claims that a payment should be
supplemented under subsection 3(1.1).
(3) The
Chairperson shall supervise and direct the operation and functioning of the
advisory panel.
(4) The
Chairperson may establish divisions of the advisory panel, and all or any of
the powers, duties and functions of the panel may be exercised or performed
by all or any of those divisions.
(5) Each
member of the advisory panel is entitled to be paid, unless the member is
employed in the federal public administration,
(a)
remuneration in an amount fixed by the Governor in Council for each day or
part of a day that the member is performing duties under this Act; and
(b) reasonable
travel and other expenses incurred in the course of their duties under this
Act while absent from their ordinary place of residence.
…
15. No right
to a payment is conferred by this Act.
|
2.
(1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
«année
d’imposition »
"taxation
year"
«année
d’imposition » L’exercice de l’autorité taxatrice.
«autorité
évaluatrice »
"assessment
authority"
«autorité
évaluatrice » Autorité habilitée en vertu d’une loi fédérale ou provinciale à
déterminer les dimensions fiscales ou la valeur fiscale d’un immeuble ou d’un
bien réel.
«autorité
taxatrice »
"taxing
authority"
«autorité
taxatrice »
a)
Municipalité ou province, organisme municipal ou provincial, ou autre
autorité qui, sous le régime d’une loi provinciale, lève et perçoit un impôt
foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie;
b)
conseil de la bande — au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens — qui, sous le
régime d’une loi fédérale, lève et perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur
la façade ou sur la superficie;
c)
bande — au sens de la Loi sur les Cris et les Naskapis du Québec,
chapitre 18 des Statuts du Canada de 1984 — qui lève et perçoit un impôt sur
les droits sur les terres de catégorie IA ou IA-N, au sens de cette loi;
d)
le conseil — au sens de la Loi sur l’autonomie gouvernementale de la bande
indienne sechelte, chapitre 27 des Statuts du Canada de 1986 —, s’il lève
et perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie
sur les terres secheltes, au sens de la même loi;
e)
la première nation dont le nom figure à l’annexe II de la Loi sur
l’autonomie gouvernementale des premières nations du Yukon, qui lève et
perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie d’une
terre désignée, au sens de cette loi, ou d’une terre dont le droit de
propriété lui est transféré ou lui est reconnu en vertu de l’article 21 de
cette loi;
f)
la Nation nisga’a ou un village nisga’a, au sens de l’Accord définitif
nisga’a mis en vigueur par la Loi sur l’Accord définitif nisga’a, qui
lève et perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la
superficie relativement aux Terres-Nisga’a, au sens de l’accord;
g)
le gouvernement tlicho, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loi sur les
revendications territoriales et l’autonomie gouvernementale du peuple tlicho,
qui lève et perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la
superficie relativement aux terres tlichos, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loi
sur la gestion des ressources de la vallée du Mackenzie;
h)
le gouvernement nunatsiavut, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loi sur l’Accord
sur les revendications territoriales des Inuit du Labrador, ou
l’administration de toute communauté inuite, au sens de la définition de
«gouvernement de communauté inuite » à l’article 1.1.1 de l’accord sur des
revendications territoriales approuvé aux termes de cette loi, s’il lève et
perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie
relativement aux terres des Inuit du Labrador ou aux terres communautaires,
selon le cas, au sens de l’article 1.1.1 de l’accord.
«
impôt foncier »
"real
property tax"
«
impôt foncier » Impôt général :
a)
levé par une autorité taxatrice sur les immeubles ou biens réels ou les
immeubles ou biens réels d’une catégorie donnée et auquel sont assujettis les
propriétaires et, dans les cas où les propriétaires bénéficient d’une
exemption, les locataires ou occupants autres que ceux bénéficiant d’une
exemption;
b)
calculé par application d’un taux à tout ou partie de la valeur fiscale des
propriétés imposables.
«ministères
»
"department"
«ministères
»
a)
Les ministères mentionnés à l’annexe I de la Loi sur la gestion des
finances publiques;
a.1)
tout secteur de l’administration publique fédérale mentionné à l’annexe I.1
de cette loi;
a.2)
toute commission nommée sous le régime de la Loi sur les enquêtes
désignée comme tel pour l’application de la Loi sur la gestion des
finances publiques;
b)
les personnes morales constituées sous le régime d’une loi fédérale ou
exerçant des fonctions pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada et
mentionnées à l’annexe I.
«ministre
»
"Minister"
«ministre
» Le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
«propriété
fédérale »
"federal
property"
«
propriété fédérale » Sous réserve du paragraphe (3) :
a)
immeuble ou bien réel appartenant à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada dont la
gestion est confiée à un ministre fédéral;
b)
immeuble ou bien réel appartenant à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada et relevant,
en vertu d’un bail, d’une personne morale mentionnée aux annexes III ou IV;
c)
immeuble dont Sa Majesté du chef du Canada est emphytéote et dont la gestion
est confiée à un ministre fédéral;
d)
bâtiment appartenant à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada, dont la gestion est
confiée à un ministre fédéral mais qui est situé sur un terrain non imposable
qui n’appartient pas à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada ou qui est contrôlé et
administré par Sa Majesté du chef d’une province;
e)
immeuble ou bien réel occupé ou utilisé par un ministre fédéral et administré
et contrôlé par Sa Majesté du chef d’une province.
«propriété
imposable »
"taxable
property"
«propriété
imposable » Immeuble ou bien réel pouvant être assujetti par une autorité
taxatrice à un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie.
«taux
effectif »
"effective
rate"
«taux
effectif » Le taux de l’impôt foncier ou de l’impôt sur la façade ou sur la
superficie qui, selon le ministre, serait applicable à une propriété fédérale
si celle-ci était une propriété imposable.
«taxe
d’occupation commerciale »
"business
occupancy tax"
«taxe
d’occupation commerciale » Impôt auquel sont assujettis les occupants d’un
immeuble ou d’un bien réel du fait qu’ils l’occupent ou l’utilisent,
directement ou indirectement, pour leurs activités commerciales ou
professionnelles.
«valeur
effective »
"property
value"
«valeur
effective » Valeur que, selon le ministre, une autorité évaluatrice
déterminerait, compte non tenu des droits miniers et des éléments décoratifs
ou non fonctionnels, comme base du calcul de l’impôt foncier qui serait
applicable à une propriété fédérale si celle-ci était une propriété
imposable.
«valeur
fiscale »
"assessed
value"
«valeur
fiscale » Valeur attribuée à un immeuble ou à un bien réel par une autorité
évaluatrice pour le calcul de l’impôt foncier.
(2)
Dans les cas où une autorité perçoit un impôt foncier ou un impôt sur la
façade ou sur la superficie qui est levé par une autre autorité, c’est celle
qui perçoit l’impôt qui, pour l’application de la définition de « autorité
taxatrice » au paragraphe (1), est réputée être l’autorité qui lève et
perçoit l’impôt.
[…]
2.1
La présente loi a pour objet l’administration juste et équitable des
paiements versés en remplacement d’impôts.
3.
(1) Le ministre peut, pour toute propriété fédérale située sur le territoire
où une autorité taxatrice est habilitée à lever et à percevoir l’un ou
l’autre des impôts mentionnés aux alinéas a) et b), et sur réception d’une
demande à cet effet établie en la forme qu’il a fixée ou approuvée, verser
sur le Trésor un paiement à l’autorité taxatrice :
a)
en remplacement de l’impôt foncier pour une année d’imposition donnée;
b)
en remplacement de l’impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie.
(1.1)
S’il est d’avis que le versement de tout ou partie du paiement visé au
paragraphe (1) a été indûment retardé, le ministre peut augmenter le montant
de celui-ci.
[…]
4.
(1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2), (3) et 5(1) et (2), le paiement visé à
l’alinéa 3(1)a) ne peut dépasser le produit des deux facteurs suivants :
a)
le taux effectif applicable à la propriété fédérale en cause pour l’année
d’imposition;
b)
la valeur effective de celle-ci pour l’année d’imposition.
[…]
9.
(1) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prendre toutes mesures
utiles à l’application de la présente loi et, notamment :
f)
régir les paiements à verser par les personnes morales mentionnées aux
annexes III ou IV en remplacement de l’impôt foncier ou de l’impôt sur la
façade ou sur la superficie et prévoir, entre autres, que leur base de calcul
sera au moins équivalente à celle prévue par la présente loi;
g)
régir les paiements à verser par les personnes morales mentionnées à l’annexe
IV en remplacement de la taxe d’occupation commerciale;
10.
Le ministre peut, par règlement :
a)
établir la formule de demande à employer pour les paiements visés par la
présente loi;
b)
régir tout versement provisoire relatif à un paiement visé par la présente
loi;
c)
régir le recouvrement des trop-payés à une autorité taxatrice, y compris par
déduction sur les paiements à verser à celle-ci en vertu de la présente loi.
11.
(1) Par dérogation à toute autre loi fédérale ou à ses règlements :
a)
les personnes morales mentionnées aux annexes III ou IV qui sont exemptées de
l’impôt foncier sont tenues, pour tout paiement qu’elles versent en
remplacement de l’impôt foncier ou de l’impôt sur la façade ou sur la
superficie, de se conformer aux règlements pris en vertu de l’alinéa 9(1)f);
b)
les personnes morales mentionnées à l’annexe IV qui sont exemptées de la taxe
d’occupation commerciale sont tenues, pour tout paiement qu’elles versent en
remplacement de celle-ci, de se conformer aux règlements pris en vertu de
l’alinéa 9(1)g).
[…]
11.1
(1) Le gouverneur en conseil constitue un comité consultatif composé d’au
moins deux membres de chaque province et territoire — dont un président —
possédant une formation ou une expérience pertinentes. Les membres sont
nommés à titre inamovible pour un mandat renouvelable d’au plus trois ans.
(1.1)
Les membres du comité nommés en vertu du paragraphe (1) le sont sous réserve
de révocation motivée par le gouverneur en conseil.
(2)
Le comité a pour mandat de donner des avis au ministre relativement à une
propriété fédérale en cas de désaccord avec une autorité taxatrice sur la
valeur effective, la dimension effective ou le taux effectif ou sur
l’augmentation ou non d’un paiement au titre du paragraphe 3(1.1).
(3)
Le président assure la direction du comité.
(4)
Le président peut constituer au sein du comité des formations pouvant exercer
tout ou partie des attributions du comité.
(5)
Sauf s’ils font partie de l’administration publique fédérale, les membres du
comité reçoivent la rémunération fixée par le gouverneur en conseil pour les
jours ou fractions de jour pendant lesquels ils accomplissent leurs fonctions
et sont indemnisés des frais de déplacement et de séjour entraînés par
l’accomplissement, hors de leur lieu ordinaire de résidence, de leurs fonctions.
[…]
15.
La présente loi ne confère aucun droit à un paiement.
|
Crown
Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81-1030
|
Interpretation
2. In these
Regulations,
"corporation
effective rate" means the rate of real property tax or of frontage or
area tax that a corporation would consider applicable to its corporation
property if that property were taxable property; ( taux effectif applicable à
une société )
"corporation
property value" means the value that a corporation would consider to be
attributable by an assessment authority to its corporation property, without
regard to any mineral rights or any ornamental, decorative or non-functional
features thereof, as the basis for computing the amount of any real property
tax that would be applicable to that property if it were taxable property. (
valeur effective de la propriété d’une société )
PART I
PAYMENTS IN
LIEU OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX OR A FRONTAGE OR AREA TAX
General
5. In this
Part, “corporation” means, in respect of any payment that may be made by it,
every corporation included in Schedule III or IV to the Act.
6. The payment
made by a corporation in lieu of a real property tax or frontage or area tax
in respect of any corporation property that would be federal property if it
were under the management, charge and direction of a minister of the Crown is
made without any condition, in an amount that is not less than the amount
referred to in sections 7 to 11.
Calculation of
Payments
7. (1) Subject
to subsection (2), a payment made by a corporation in lieu of a real property
tax for a taxation year shall be not less than the product of
(a) the
corporation effective rate in the taxation year applicable to the corporation
property in respect of which the payment may be made; and
(b) the
corporation property value in the taxation year of that corporation property.
(2) Where
all or part of the real property tax levied by a taxing authority in a
taxation year is for school purposes and is levied at different rates
(a) for taxpayers
of different religious denominations, or
(b) for
taxpayers of different religious denominations and for different classes of
taxable property,
there shall be
substituted for the corporation effective rate referred to in paragraph (1)(a),
a rate equal to the aggregate of
(c) that part
of the corporation effective rate in the taxation year that is used in
determining the amount of the real property tax that is levied for purposes
other than school purposes,
and
(d) if
paragraph (a) applies, a rate for school purposes obtained by dividing
(i) the
portion of the real property tax levied for school purposes by the taxing
authority in the taxation year, by
(ii) the
assessed value of all taxable property under the jurisdiction of the taxing
authority in respect of which such portion of the real property tax for
school purposes is levied in the taxation year, or
(e) if
paragraph (b) applies, a rate for school purposes for each class of taxable
property determined by dividing
(i) the
portion of the real property tax levied for school purposes by the taxing
authority in respect of property of such class in the taxation year, by
(ii) the
assessed value of all taxable property of such class under the jurisdiction
of the taxing authority in respect of which such portion of the real property
tax for school purposes is levied in the taxation year.
Deductions
9. In
determining the amount of a payment for a taxation year under section 7,
there may be deducted
(a) if there
is in effect a special arrangement for the provision or financing of an
education service by the corporation, the amount established by that
arrangement;
(b) if there
is in effect a special arrangement for an alternative means of compensating a
taxing authority, or a body on behalf of which the authority collects a real
property tax, for providing a service, the amount established by that
arrangement;
(c) if a
taxing authority, or a body on behalf of which the authority collects a real
property tax, is, in the opinion of the corporation, unable or unwilling to
provide the corporation property with a service, and no special arrangement
exists, an amount that, in the opinion of the corporation, does not exceed
reasonable expenditures incurred or expected to be incurred by the
corporation to provide the service; and
(d) an amount
that, in the opinion of the corporation, is equal to any cancellation,
reduction or refund in respect of a real property tax that the corporation
considers would be applicable to the taxation year in respect of its
corporation property if it were taxable property.
Time and
manner of payments
12. (1)
Subject to subsection (2), where a corporation makes a payment in accordance
with section 6, it shall be made
(a) only to
the taxing authority for the area in which the corporation property is
situated; and
(b) within 50
days after receipt of an application for the payment.
(2) Where a
corporation is unable to make a final determination of the amount of a
payment made in accordance with section 6 within the time referred to in
paragraph (1)(b), the corporation shall make, within that time, an interim
payment that corresponds to the estimated total payment to be made.
Advisory panel
12.1 Section
11.1 of the Act applies to a corporation with respect to payments in lieu of
a real property tax or a frontage or area tax, as if the reference to “the
Minister” were a reference to “a corporation” and any reference to “federal
property” were a reference to “corporation property”.
|
Définitions
2.
Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent règlement.
«taux
effectif applicable à une société» Le taux de l’impôt foncier ou de l’impôt
sur la façade ou sur la superficie qui, de l’avis de la société, serait
applicable à sa propriété si celle-ci était une propriété imposable. (
corporation effective rate )
«valeur
effective de la propriété d’une société» La valeur qui, de l’avis de la
société, serait déterminée par une autorité évaluatrice, abstraction faite de
tous droits miniers et de tous éléments décoratifs ou non-fonctionnels, comme
base du calcul de l’impôt foncier applicable à sa propriété si celle-ci était
une propriété imposable. ( corporation property value )
PARTIE
I
PAIEMENTS
VERSÉS EN REMPLACEMENT DE L’IMPÔT FONCIER OU DE L’IMPÔT SUR LA FAÇADE OU SUR LA SUPERFICIE
Dispositions
générales
5.
Dans la présente partie, « société » s’entend, à l’égard de tout paiement
qu’elle peut verser, de toute société mentionnée aux annexes III ou IV de la
Loi.
6.
Le paiement effectué par une société en remplacement de l’impôt foncier ou de
l’impôt sur la façade ou sur la superficie à l’égard d’une propriété qui
serait une propriété fédérale si un ministre fédéral en avait la gestion, la
charge et la direction n’est assorti d’aucune condition et ne doit pas être
inférieur aux sommes visées aux articles 7 et 11.
Calcul
des paiements
7.
(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), un paiement versé par une société en
remplacement de l’impôt foncier pour une année d’imposition ne doit pas être
inférieur au produit des deux facteurs suivants :
a)
le taux effectif applicable à la société dans l’année d’imposition en cause à
l’égard de la propriété de celle-ci pour laquelle le paiement peut être
versé;
b)
la valeur effective de la propriété de la société pour cette année
d’imposition.
(2) Dans le cas où tout ou partie de l’impôt foncier levé par une autorité
taxatrice pour une année d’imposition est une taxe scolaire et que le taux de
celle-ci varie :
a)
soit selon la religion du contribuable, ou
b)
soit à la fois selon la religion du contribuable et selon la catégorie de
propriétés imposables,
le
taux effectif applicable d’une société visé à l’alinéa (1)a) peut être
remplacé par le taux qui est égal à la somme des éléments suivants :
d’une
part :
c)
la partie du taux effectif applicable à une société qui s’applique à la
partie de l’impôt foncier qui n’est pas une taxe scolaire,
d’autre
part, un taux de taxe scolaire déterminé de la façon suivante :
d)
s’il s’agit du cas prévu à l’alinéa a), ce taux est le quotient résultant de
la division du montant visé au sous-alinéa (i) par le montant visé au
sous-alinéa (ii) :
(i)
la partie de l’impôt foncier qui constitue la taxe scolaire,
(ii)
le montant de l’évaluation de toutes les propriétés imposables qui sont du
ressort de l’autorité taxatrice et qui constituent, pour l’année
d’imposition, l’assiette de la partie de l’impôt foncier qui est une taxe
scolaire,
e)
s’il s’agit du cas prévu à l’alinéa b), le taux de la taxe scolaire qui
s’applique à chaque catégorie de propriétés imposables est le quotient
résultant de la division du montant visé au sous-alinéa (i) par le montant
visé au sous-alinéa (ii) :
(i)
la partie de l’impôt foncier qui constitue la taxe scolaire pour la catégorie
concernée,
(ii)
le montant de l’évaluation de toutes les propriétés imposables de cette
catégorie qui sont du ressort de l’autorité taxatrice et qui constituent,
pour l’année d’imposition, l’assiette de la partie de l’impôt foncier qui est
une taxe scolaire.
Déductions
9.
Dans le calcul du paiement visé à l’article 7 pour une année d’imposition
donnée, peut être déduit :
a)
au titre d’un service d’enseignement que la société fournit ou finance, aux
termes d’une entente spéciale en vigueur, la somme calculée conformément à
celle-ci;
b)
au titre d’un autre service pour lequel l’autorité taxatrice ou l’organisme
pour le compte duquel elle perçoit un impôt foncier sont dédommagés en vertu
d’une entente spéciale en vigueur, la somme calculée conformément à celle-ci;
c)
au titre d’un service — non visé par une entente spéciale — que, selon la
société, l’autorité taxatrice ou l’organisme pour le compte duquel elle
perçoit un impôt foncier ne veulent ou ne peuvent pas fournir à une propriété
de la société, une somme qui, selon la société, ne dépasse pas les frais
raisonnables qu’elle a engagés ou estime devoir engager pour fournir le
service;
d)
une somme égale, selon la société, à tout remboursement, suppression ou
réduction de l’impôt foncier qui, pour l’année d’imposition, s’appliquerait,
selon elle, à ses propriétés si celles-ci étaient des propriétés imposables.
Modalités
de versement
12.
(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le paiement effectué par une société en
application de l’article 6 est versé :
a)
uniquement à l’autorité taxatrice du lieu où la propriété est située;
b)
dans les cinquante jours suivant la réception de la demande de paiement.
(2) Lorsqu’une société est incapable de déterminer de façon définitive le montant
du paiement à verser aux termes de l’article 6 au cours du délai visé à
l’alinéa (1)b), elle doit, au cours de ce délai, effectuer un versement
provisoire qui correspond au montant estimatif total du paiement.
Comité
consultatif
12.1
L’article 11.1 de la Loi s’applique à toute société en ce qui touche les
paiements versés en remplacement de l’impôt foncier ou de l’impôt sur la
façade ou sur la superficie, les mentions du ministre et des propriétés
fédérales valant respectivement mention de la société et des propriétés de la
société.
|
Interim
Payments and Recovery of Overpayments Regulations, SOR/81-226:
|
3. When, in respect of an application
made by a taxing authority under section 3 of the Act, a final determination
of the amount of the payment cannot be made within 50 days after receipt of
the application, or within 90 days in the case of an application made for the
first time, the Minister may
(a) estimate, on the basis of the
information available to the Minister, the amount that may be paid to the
taxing authority under section 3 of the Act; and
(b) make an interim payment
to the taxing authority in an amount that does not exceed the amount referred
to in paragraph (a).
4. If any payment made to a taxing authority under the Act
or these Regulations is greater than the amount that may be paid to the
taxing authority under section 3 of the Act, the amount of the overpayment
and interest on that amount prescribed for the purpose of section 155.1 of
the Financial Administration Act may be
(a) set off against other payments that may
otherwise be paid to the taxing authority under section 3 of the Act or these
Regulations; or
(b) recovered as a debt
due to Her Majesty in right of Canada by the taxing authority.
|
3. S’il est impossible de déterminer de
façon définitive le montant du paiement dans les cinquante jours suivant la
réception de la demande présentée en vertu de l’article 3 de la Loi par
l’autorité taxatrice ou, dans le cas de la demande présentée pour la première
fois, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant sa réception, le ministre
peut :
a)
estimer, en se fondant sur les renseignements dont il dispose, la somme
pouvant être versée à l’autorité taxatrice en vertu de cet article;
b) faire, à l’égard du paiement, un versement provisoire ne
dépassant pas la somme visée à l’alinéa a).
4. Si le montant d’un paiement versé à
une autorité taxatrice au titre de la Loi ou du présent règlement est plus
élevé que ce qui aurait dû être versé en vertu l’article 3 de la Loi, le
trop-perçu et les intérêts fixés en vertu de l’article 155.1 de la Loi sur
la gestion des finances publiques peuvent être, selon le cas :
a)
portés en diminution de tout autre paiement pouvant être versé à l’autorité
taxatrice en vertu de cet article ou du présent règlement;
b) recouvrés à titre de créance de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada.
|
Municipal
Taxation Act,
R.S.Q. c. F-2.1:
|
CHAPTER V
CONTENTS OF
THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ROLL
DIVISION I
UNITS OF
ASSESSMENT
§ 1. —
General rule
Immovables.
31. Subject
to Division IV, the immovables situated in the territory of a local
municipality shall be entered on the property assessment roll.
“roll”.
For the
purposes of this chapter, the word “roll” means the property assessment roll.
DIVISION III
OTHER
PARTICULARS
Taxable value.
55. Whenever
the law provides that only part of the value of an immovable is taxable or
that it is exempt from property taxes, the roll must state the taxable value
of the immovable or the fact that it is exempt, as the case may be.
Reference to
legislative source.
All
information entered pursuant to this section must be accompanied with a
reference to its legislative source.
CHAPTER X
ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW AND PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION I
ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW
Agreement.
138.4. The
applicant may, where the applicant has not brought a proceeding under section
138.5, enter into an agreement with the assessor on an alteration to the
roll.
Time limit.
The agreement
may be entered into
1) on or
before the thirtieth day following the sending by the assessor of the writing
required under the first paragraph of section 138.3 ;
2) before the
expiry of the applicable time limit for the sending of the writing required
under the first paragraph of section 138.3, if the assessor has not sent the
writing within that time limit.
Date of
effect.
The agreement
must be in writing and specify the date from which the alteration to the roll
resulting from the agreement is to have effect.
Agreement
null.
An agreement
entered into after the expiry of the time limit set out in the second
paragraph is null.
DIVISION II
PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Proceeding
before Tribunal.
138.5. The
person having filed the application for review may, if the person has not
entered into an agreement under section 138.4, bring before the Tribunal a
proceeding relating to the same subject-matter as the application.
Filing of
complaint.
If such an
agreement is entered into, the following persons other than the person having
made the application for review may, in the circumstances mentioned, if
applicable, bring a proceeding before the Tribunal to contest the alteration
arising from the agreement:
1) the person
in whose name the unit of assessment or business establishment concerned by
the alteration is entered on the roll or was entered thereon immediately
before the alteration;
2) the person
who, as a result of the alteration, was entered on the roll as lessee or
occupant of the unit of assessment;
3) the local
municipality, the school board or the municipal body responsible for
assessment concerned, if the alteration concerns a unit of assessment or a
business establishment that is not entered on the roll in its name and if the
proceeding is based on a question of law;
4) the Minister,
if the alteration concerns an entry used in calculating a sum payable by the
Government under section 210, 254 or 257;
5)
(subparagraph repealed).
…
CHAPTER XVIII
FISCAL
PROVISIONS
DIVISION I
TAXABLE
IMMOVABLES
§ 2. —
Exceptions
Immovables
exempt from tax.
204. The
following are exempt from all municipal or school property taxes:
1) an
immovable included in a unit of assessment entered on the roll in the name of
the State or of the Société immobilière du Québec;
1.1) an
immovable included in a unit of assessment entered on the roll in the name of
the Crown in right of Canada or a mandatary thereof;
…
Taxable
immovable.
208. Where an
immovable that is not taxable under paragraph 1 or 1.1 of section 204 is
occupied by a person other than a person referred to in that section or a
corporation that is a mandatary of the State, unless its owner is the Société
immobilière du Québec, the property taxes to which that immovable would be
subject without that exemption are levied on the lessee or, if there is no
lessee, on the occupant, and are payable by the lessee or occupant. However,
that rule does not apply in the case of an immovable referred to in paragraph
1.1 of section 204 where, according to the legislation of the Parliament of
Canada relating to subsidies to municipalities that are to stand in lieu of
property taxes, and according to the instruments made under that legislation,
such a subsidy is paid in respect of the immovable notwithstanding its being
occupied as described in this paragraph.
…
DIVISION III
BUSINESS TAX
Business tax.
232. Every
local municipality may, by by-law, impose a business tax on any person
entered on its roll of rental values carrying on, for pecuniary gain or not,
an economic or administrative activity in matters of finance, trade, industry
or services, a calling, an art, a profession or any other activity
constituting a means of profit, gain or livelihood, except an employment or
charge.
Imposition.
The tax shall
be imposed, according to the roll, on the occupant of each business
establishment on the basis of its rental value, at the rate fixed in the
by-law.
[…]
Exemptions.
236. No
business tax may be imposed by reason of
1) an
activity carried on by
(a) the State
or the Crown in right of Canada, a mandatary of the Crown in right of Canada,
the Société immobilière du Québec, the Corporation d'hébergement du Québec,
the Régie des installations olympiques, the Agence métropolitaine de
transport, the Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal or the École
nationale de police du Québec;
(b) a local
municipality, a community, a regional county municipality, a mandatary of any
such body or a transit corporation whose budget is, by law, submitted to an
elected municipal body;
(c) a school
board, a general and vocational college, a university establishment within
the meaning of the University Investments Act ( chapter I-17) or the
Conservatoire de musique et d'art dramatique du Québec;
(d) a private
educational institution operated by a non-profit body under a permit issued
under the Act respecting private education ( chapter E-9.1), a private
educational institution accredited for purposes of subsidies under that Act
or an institution whose instructional program is the subject of an
international agreement within the meaning of the Act respecting the
Ministère des Relations internationales ( chapter M-25.1.1);
(e) a public
institution within the meaning of the Act respecting health services and
social services ( chapter S-4.2), a health and social services agency
referred to in that Act or a public institution within the meaning of the Act
respecting health services and social services for Cree Native persons (
chapter S-5);
(f) a private
institution defined in paragraph 3 of section 99 or in section 551 of the
first Act referred to in subparagraph e of this paragraph or defined in
section 12 of the second Act referred to, under a permit issued to the
institution under the Act that is applicable to the institution, and which is
an activity inherent in the mission of a local community service centre, a
residential and long-term care centre or a rehabilitation centre within the
meaning of the first Act referred to or of a reception centre within the
meaning of the second Act referred to;
(g) a cooperative
or non-profit organization under a childcare centre or day care centre permit
or an accredited home childcare coordinating office pursuant to the
Educational Childcare Act (chapter S-4.1.1);
(h) a person
recognized as a person responsible for home childcare under the Act mentioned
in subparagraph g, and which is an activity inherent in the mission of such a
person;
2) an
activity carried on by a public body or any person mentioned in section 204
for the purpose of allowing the use of a public road or works forming part of
it, or the use of works used for the protection of wildlife or of the forest
and situated in an unorganized territory;
3) an
activity carried on by an episcopal corporation, a fabrique, a religious
institution or a Church constituted as a legal person, as part of the
exercise of public worship;
4) an
activity carried on without pecuniary gain by a religious institution or a
fabrique in the immediate pursuit of the religious or charitable objects for
which it was established;
5) an
activity carried on by the recognized person in the immovable in respect of
which the recognition under section 243.4 has been granted and is in force;
6) (paragraph
replaced) ;
7) (paragraph
replaced) ;
8) (paragraph
repealed) ;
9) the
operation of a cemetery without pecuniary gain;
10) an
activity carried on for agricultural or horticultural exhibition purposes by
an agricultural or horticultural society or by any person mentioned in
section 204;
11) an
activity related to an agricultural operation registered in accordance with a
regulation adopted pursuant to section 36.15 of the Act respecting the
Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation ( chapter
M-14);
12) an
activity by reason of which a forest producer's certificate is issued
pursuant to section 120 of the Forest Act ( chapter F-4.1);
13) an
activity consisting in furnishing to others a residential immovable other
than an immovable for which the operator is required to hold a classification
certificate issued under the Act respecting tourist accommodation
establishments (chapter E-14.2), or in furnishing to the persons residing in
the immovable or their guests such goods or related service as are reserved
for them, to the extent that the activity is carried on in the immovable or
dependencies thereof where the goods or related service are furnished;
14) an
activity carried on by the Société du Palais des congrès de Montréal in the
immovable designated under that name.
|
CHAPITRE
V
CONTENU
DU RÔLE D'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE
SECTION
I
UNITÉ
D'ÉVALUATION
§
1. — Règle générale
Immeubles.
31.
Sous réserve de la section IV, les immeubles situés sur le territoire d'une
municipalité locale sont portés au rôle d'évaluation foncière.
«rôle».
Pour
l'application du présent chapitre, le mot «rôle» signifie le rôle
d'évaluation foncière.
SECTION
III
AUTRES
MENTIONS
Valeur
imposable.
55.
Chaque fois que la loi dispose que seule une partie de la valeur d'un
immeuble est imposable ou qu'il est exempt de taxe foncière, le rôle fait
état de la valeur imposable de cet immeuble ou du fait de son exemption,
selon le cas.
Renseignement
inscrit.
Chaque
renseignement inscrit en vertu du présent article est accompagné d'une
mention de sa source législative.
CHAPITRE
X
RÉVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE ET RECOURS DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL
SECTION
I
RÉVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE
Modification
au rôle.
138.4.
Le demandeur peut, s'il n'a pas formé le recours prévu à l'article 138.5,
conclure avec l'évaluateur une entente sur une modification au rôle.
Entente.
L'entente
peut être conclue :
1°
au plus tard le trentième jour qui suit l'expédition par l'évaluateur de
l'écrit prévu au premier alinéa de l'article 138.3;
2°
avant l'expiration du délai applicable pour l'expédition de l'écrit prévu au
premier alinéa de l'article 138.3, si l'évaluateur ne l'a pas expédié dans ce
délai.
Écrit.
L'entente
doit être écrite et prévoir la date de prise d'effet de la modification au
rôle qui en découle.
Nullité.
Toute
entente conclue après l'expiration du délai prévu au deuxième alinéa est
nulle.
SECTION
II
RECOURS
DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL
Recours
au Tribunal.
138.5.
La personne qui a fait la demande de révision peut, si elle n'a pas conclu
une entente en vertu de l'article 138.4, former devant le Tribunal un recours
ayant le même objet que la demande.
Délai.
Si
une telle entente est conclue, les personnes suivantes autres que celle qui a
fait la demande de révision peuvent, dans les circonstances mentionnées le
cas échéant, former un recours devant le Tribunal pour contester la
modification découlant de l'entente:
1°
la personne au nom de laquelle l'unité d'évaluation ou l'établissement
d'entreprise visé par la modification est inscrit au rôle ou l'était
immédiatement avant celle-ci;
2°
la personne qui, par l'effet de la modification, a été inscrite au rôle à
titre de locataire ou d'occupant de l'unité d'évaluation;
3°
la municipalité locale, la commission scolaire ou l'organisme municipal
responsable de l'évaluation intéressé, si la modification concerne une unité
d'évaluation ou un établissement d'entreprise qui n'est pas inscrit au rôle à
son nom et si le recours est fondé sur une question de droit;
4°
le ministre, si la modification concerne une inscription utilisée dans le
calcul d'une somme payable par le gouvernement en vertu de l'un des articles
210, 254 et 257;
5°
(paragraphe abrogé).
[…]
CHAPITRE
XVIII
DISPOSITIONS
FISCALES
SECTION
I
IMMEUBLES
IMPOSABLES
§
2. — Exceptions
Immeubles
exempts de taxes.
204.
Sont exempts de toute taxe foncière, municipale ou scolaire:
1°
un immeuble compris dans une unité d'évaluation inscrite au nom de l'État ou
de la Société immobilière du Québec;
1.1°
un immeuble compris dans une unité d'évaluation inscrite au nom de la
Couronne du chef du Canada ou d'un mandataire de celle-ci;
[…]
Paiement
de taxes foncières.
208.
Lorsqu'un immeuble non imposable en vertu du paragraphe 1° ou 1.1° de
l'article 204 est occupé par un autre qu'une personne mentionnée à cet
article ou qu'une société qui est mandataire de l'État, sauf si son
propriétaire est la Société immobilière du Québec, les taxes foncières
auxquelles cet immeuble serait assujetti sans cette exemption sont imposées
au locataire ou, à défaut, à l'occupant, et sont payables par lui. Toutefois,
cette règle ne s'applique pas dans le cas d'un immeuble visé au paragraphe
1.1° de l'article 204 lorsque, suivant la législation du Parlement du Canada
relative aux subventions aux municipalités pour tenir lieu des taxes foncières
et selon les actes pris en vertu de cette législation, une telle subvention
est versée à l'égard de l'immeuble malgré l'occupation visée au présent
alinéa dont il fait l'objet.
[…]
SECTION
III
TAXE
D'AFFAIRES
Taxe
d'affaires.
232.
Toute municipalité locale peut, par règlement, imposer une taxe d'affaires
sur toute personne inscrite à son rôle de la valeur locative qui exerce, à
des fins lucratives ou non, une activité économique ou administrative en
matière de finance, de commerce, d'industrie ou de services, un métier, un
art, une profession ou toute autre activité constituant un moyen de profit,
de gain ou d'existence, sauf un emploi ou une charge.
Imposition.
La
taxe est imposée, selon le rôle, à l'occupant de chaque établissement
d'entreprise sur la base de la valeur locative de celui-ci, au taux fixé dans
le règlement.
[…]
Taxes
d'affaires.
236.
La taxe d'affaires ne peut être imposée en raison:
1°
d'une activité exercée par:
a)
l'État ou la Couronne du chef du Canada, un mandataire de la Couronne du chef
du Canada, la Société immobilière du Québec, la Corporation d'hébergement du
Québec, la Régie des installations olympiques, l'Agence métropolitaine de
transport, la Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal ou l'École nationale
de police du Québec;
b)
une municipalité locale, une Communauté, une municipalité régionale de comté,
un mandataire de l'une d'elles ou une société de transport dont le budget,
selon la loi, est soumis à un collège d'élus municipaux;
c)
une commission scolaire, un collège d'enseignement général et professionnel,
un établissement universitaire au sens de la Loi sur les investissements
universitaires ( chapitre I-17) ou le Conservatoire de musique et d'art
dramatique du Québec;
d)
un établissement d'enseignement privé tenu par un organisme à but non
lucratif conformément à un permis délivré en vertu de la Loi sur
l'enseignement privé ( chapitre E-9.1), un établissement d'enseignement privé
agréé aux fins de subventions en vertu de cette loi ou un établissement dont
le régime d'enseignement est l'objet d'une entente internationale au sens de
la Loi sur le ministère des Relations internationales ( chapitre M-25.1.1);
e)
un établissement public au sens de la Loi sur les services de santé et les
services sociaux ( chapitre S-4.2), une agence de la santé et des services
sociaux visée par cette loi ou un établissement public au sens de la Loi sur
les services de santé et les services sociaux pour les autochtones cris (
chapitre S-5);
f)
un établissement privé visé au paragraphe 3° de l'article 99 ou à l'article
551 de la première loi mentionnée au sous-paragraphe e du présent paragraphe
ou visé à l'article 12 de la seconde, conformément à un permis délivré à
l'établissement en vertu de celle de ces lois qui lui est applicable, et qui
constitue une activité propre à la mission d'un centre local de services
communautaires, d'un centre d'hébergement et de soins de longue durée ou d'un
centre de réadaptation au sens de la première de ces lois ou d'un centre
d'accueil au sens de la seconde;
g)
une coopérative ou un organisme à but non lucratif conformément à un permis
de centre de la petite enfance ou de garderie ou conformément à un agrément à
titre de bureau coordonnateur de la garde en milieu familial qui lui a été
délivré en vertu de la Loi sur les services de garde éducatifs à l'enfance
(chapitre S-4.1.1);
h)
une personne reconnue à titre de responsable d'un service de garde en milieu
familial, en vertu de la loi mentionnée au sous-paragraphe g, et qui constitue
une activité propre à la mission d'un tel responsable;
2°
de l'activité d'un organisme public ou d'une autre personne mentionnée à
l'article 204 exercée dans le but de fournir l'usage d'une voie publique ou
d'un ouvrage qui en fait partie, ou l'usage d'un ouvrage utilisé pour la
protection de la faune ou de la forêt et situé dans un territoire non
organisé;
3°
de l'activité d'une corporation épiscopale, d'une fabrique, d'une institution
religieuse ou d'une Église constituée en personne morale qui entre dans le
cadre de l'exercice du culte public;
4°
de l'activité exercée dans un but non lucratif dans la poursuite immédiate de
ses objets constitutifs de nature religieuse ou charitable par une
institution religieuse ou une fabrique;
5°
de l'activité exercée, dans l'immeuble visé par une reconnaissance en vigueur
et prévue à l'article 243.4, par la personne reconnue;
6°
(paragraphe remplacé) ;
7°
(paragraphe remplacé) ;
8°
(paragraphe abrogé) ;
9°
de l'exploitation dans un but non lucratif d'un cimetière;
10°
de l'activité exercée à des fins d'exposition agricole ou horticole par une
société d'agriculture ou d'horticulture ou par une autre personne mentionnée
à l'article 204;
11°
de l'activité reliée à une exploitation agricole enregistrée conformément à
un règlement adopté en vertu de l'article 36.15 de la Loi sur le ministère de
l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation ( chapitre M-14);
12°
de l'activité en raison de laquelle est délivré un certificat de producteur
forestier en application de l'article 120 de la Loi sur les forêts ( chapitre
F-4.1);
13°
de l'activité consistant à fournir à autrui un immeuble résidentiel autre
qu'un immeuble dont l'exploitant doit être titulaire d'une attestation de
classification délivrée en vertu de la Loi sur les établissements
d'hébergement touristique ( chapitre E-14.2) ou consistant à fournir aux
personnes qui résident dans l'immeuble ou à leurs visiteurs un bien ou un
service connexe qui leur est réservé, dans la mesure où l'activité est exercée
dans l'immeuble ou dans ses dépendances où le bien ou le service connexe est
fourni;
14°
d'une activité exercée par la Société du Palais des congrès de Montréal dans
l'immeuble désigné sous ce nom.
|
Email this Content