Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Municipal law ‑‑ Real estate valuation ‑‑ Tax‑exempt immovables ‑‑ Public establishments ‑‑ Whether appellant can be assimilated to public establishments it serves and benefit from tax exemption ‑‑ Interpretation of tax legislation ‑‑ Alter ego theory ‑‑ Act respecting Municipal Taxation, R.S.Q., c. F‑2.1, ss. 204(14), 236(1.1).
Taxation ‑‑ Legislation ‑‑ Rules for interpreting tax legislation.
This appeal raises questions identical to those considered in the companion case Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 29. In fact, the Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. is the Montreal counterpart of the appellant. The incorporation and operations of these two non‑profit corporations are more or less similar. The appellant has carried on its laundry activities since 1967 in an immovable owned by a hospital centre. A marginal segment of the users of this service are organizations that are not public reception centres or hospital centres. Under s. 18.5 of the Act respecting Health Services and Social Services, the appellant also acts as the exclusive representative of the establishments it serves for the supply of goods and services in common. In 1986 the appellant leased a warehouse from a private undertaking for its group purchasing activities. Until 1986, the appellant was exempt from real estate and business tax as a public establishment pursuant to ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation ("A.M.T."). Subsequently, the immovable used by the appellant for its laundry activities was entered on the real estate valuation roll and the roll of rental values for 1985, 1986 and 1987. At the same time, the immovable it used for its group purchasing activities was entered on the roll of rental values for 1986 and 1987. The Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec dismissed the appellant's complaint challenging its listing on the rolls and asking to be granted a tax exemption. The Court of Québec set that decision aside, but the Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal and restored the Bureau's decision.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
The analysis of the issues made in Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. applies to the present case. In light of the principles governing the interpretation of tax legislation, and having regard to the intent of the legislature as well as the virtual identity of patrimony between the appellant and its member establishments, the former should not be treated differently from the latter for tax purposes. The appellant can therefore take advantage of the tax exemptions provided in ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) A.M.T. for both of the immovables it uses.
Cases Cited
Followed: Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 29.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Act respecting Health Services and Social Services, R.S.Q., c. S‑5, ss. 10 [am. 1981, c. 22, s. 41], 11, 18.5 [ad. idem, s. 43].
Act respecting Municipal Taxation, R.S.Q., c. F‑2.1, ss. 204(14) [repl. 1980, c. 34, s. 27(4); repl. 1986, c. 34, s. 12(2)], 236(1.1) [ad. 1982, c. 63, s. 216; am. 1986, c. 34, s. 19], 255 [am. 1979, c. 80, s. 54; repl. 1980, c. 34, s. 44; am. 1982, c. 2, s. 96; am. idem, c. 63, s. 219; am. 1983, c. 40, s. 73; am. 1986, c. 34, s. 21].
Regulation respecting the application of the Act respecting health services and social services, R.R.Q. 1981, c. S‑5, r. 1, s. 301.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1993), 54 Q.A.C. 223, reversing a judgment of the Court of Québec, J.E. 91‑1711, reversing a decision of the Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec. Appeal allowed.
Jacques Tremblay and Pierre Delisle, Q.C., for the appellant.
Daniel Tardif, for the respondents the Communauté urbaine de Québec and the City of Québec.
No one appeared for the respondent the Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by
//Gonthier J.//
Gonthier J. -- The issue in this case is whether the appellant, Partagec Inc. ("Partagec"), can benefit from the tax exemptions provided for in ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation, R.S.Q., c. F‑2.1 ("A.M.T."), relating to real estate and business tax respectively. In this Court two main questions were raised: (1) What are the principles that should guide the courts in interpreting tax legislation? (2) In light of these principles, can Partagec be regarded as the alter ego of the establishments served by it, or be assimilated to them in any way, so as to come within the scope of ss. 10 and 11 of the Act respecting Health Services and Social Services, R.S.Q., c. S‑5 ("A.H.S.S.S."), indirectly referred to in ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) A.M.T.?
I ‑ Facts
This appeal raises questions identical to those which this Court had to consider in Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 29, decided concurrently herewith. In fact, the Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. ("Buanderie") became the Montreal counterpart of Partagec, following the latter's success in the Québec area, the creation of which marked the beginning of a period of merger of hospital laundry and linen services. Accordingly, I will not go into any detail about the incorporation of Partagec and its subsequent operations, which are more or less similar to what I described in the decision mentioned above.
There are nevertheless three facts which distinguish the case at bar: first, while the Buanderie occupied an immovable owned by the Conseil de la santé et des services sociaux de la région de Montréal métropolitain under an emphyteutic lease granted to the latter by the Hôpital Louis‑Hippolyte Lafontaine, Partagec here leases an immovable to carry on its activities which remains the direct property of the Hôpital de l'Enfant‑Jésus; second, whereas the activities of the Buanderie were limited exclusively to laundry and linen services, Partagec is also recognized under s. 18.5 A.H.S.S.S. as the exclusive representative of the establishments it serves for the supply of goods and services in common. As such it acts as executor of a group purchasing program for these institutions pursuant to s. 301 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Act respecting health services and social services, R.R.Q. 1981, c. S‑5, r. 1, and carries on these latter activities in a warehouse which it leased from a private undertaking, Services Conseils Martin Inc. Finally, whereas the member establishments of the Buanderie were exclusively public hospital centres or reception centres, Partagec also includes among its users of laundry services organizations having a different status, such as the Canadian Red Cross Society and certain private reception centres. I note, however, that this segment of the clientele is marginal compared to that of the public establishments, in terms of both the number of establishments served and the volume of linen provided for cleaning.
From the start of its operations, which date back to January 1, 1967, up to December 1986, Partagec was exempt from real estate and business tax as a public establishment pursuant to ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) A.M.T. During that period the City of Québec and the Communauté urbaine de Québec received grants from the provincial government proportionate to the taxes they might otherwise have collected from Partagec. This compensation was paid pursuant to s. 255 of the same Act.
On December 19, 1986, however, following a notice received from the Ministère des affaires municipales informing the City of Québec that the grants were being terminated, the Communauté urbaine de Québec altered the real estate and rental rolls and entered on them the immovable occupied by Partagec for its laundry services in respect of the 1985, 1986 and 1987 fiscal years. At the same time certificates of amendment were issued in respect of the warehouse occupied by Partagec for its group purchasing activities: the immovable was then entered on the rental roll for 1986 and 1987, the real estate taxes being paid by the private undertaking which owned it.
Before the Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec ("BREF"), Partagec challenged its listing on the real estate and rental rolls and asked to be granted a tax exemption. On June 29, 1988 the BREF dismissed the appellant's complaints. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Québec. On September 26, 1991 Judge Boulanger (J.E. 91‑1711) allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the BREF, declared the entries on the real estate roll to be illegal and null and void and declared Partagec to be exempt from business tax for the two immovables occupied by it for laundry and common supply services. On March 19, 1993 the Quebec Court of Appeal ((1993), 54 Q.A.C. 223) allowed the appeal of the respondents the Communauté urbaine de Québec and the City of Québec and restored the BREF's decision: hence the present appeal.
II ‑ Analysis
The analysis I made of the points at issue in Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City), decided concurrently herewith, applies to the present case and I refer to it. The factual distinctions which I mentioned earlier do not in my view affect Partagec's legal status as regards municipal taxes.
Accordingly, in light of the principles governing the interpretation of tax legislation formulated by this Court, and having regard to the intent of the legislature as well as the virtual identity of patrimony between Partagec and its member establishments, I conclude that the former should not be treated differently from the latter for tax purposes. I am therefore of the view that, for 1985, 1986 and 1987, Partagec can take advantage of ss. 204(14) and 236(1.1) A.M.T. and benefit from exemptions regarding real estate and business tax for the immovable used by it to provide laundry services. The same conclusion applies for business tax in 1986 and 1987 in respect of the immovable occupied by Partagec for its common supply activities.
III ‑ Disposition
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of the Court of Québec, reversing the decision of the BREF, is restored, the whole with costs before the BREF and in all courts.
Email this Content