Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal concerning delays in contesting municipal property tax assessments

• Interpretation of the interaction between article 138.5 of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (LFM) and article 106 of the Loi sur la justice administrative (LJA)

• Determination of whether a tribunal may excuse filing delays based on “reasonable grounds” rather than “force majeure”

• The underlying issue became moot due to a settlement and withdrawal of the proceedings at the TAQ

• Court exercised its discretion not to rule on the moot issue, finding no compelling public interest

• No winner in the appeal, as the Court dismissed it solely to reflect the settlement and did not rule on the merits

Facts of the case
The Ville de Montréal appealed a decision of the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) that excused Root Data Center Inc.’s late filing of applications contesting property tax assessments for the 2017-2019 and 2020-2022 tax rolls. The appeals were filed more than two years after the municipal evaluator’s decisions. The TAQ allowed the late filings under article 106 of the LJA, applying a “reasonable grounds” standard instead of the stricter “force majeure” requirement of article 138.5 of the LFM.

Procedural developments
While the Court was deliberating, Root Data Center and the Ville reached a settlement resolving the property tax assessments in question. As a result, Root filed formal notices of withdrawal before the TAQ, rendering the present appeal moot. The Ville asked the Court to nonetheless rule on the legal question for the benefit of future similar cases.

Arguments of the parties
The Ville argued that the legal issue concerning the interaction of the LFM and LJA provisions was recurring and significant, and that a ruling would provide valuable guidance. Root Data Center took no position and deferred to the Court’s discretion.

Tribunal’s analysis
The Court applied article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles from Borowski, confirming that courts may rule on moot issues only in exceptional cases where the public interest so requires. The Court noted that a recent detailed judgment had already clarified the legal issue, and further adjudication was unnecessary given the absence of a live controversy. The Court found no compelling public interest that would justify exercising its discretion to rule.

Outcome
The Court dismissed the appeal to formally reflect the effect of the settlement and the mootness of the issue. No costs were awarded. There was no winner on the merits, as the Court did not adjudicate the substantive legal question, and the appeal was dismissed purely because the underlying dispute no longer existed.