Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal concerned the legality of retroactive property assessment modifications issued by a municipal evaluator.

• Central question involved interpreting the assessor’s statutory authority under sections 32 and 174(7°) of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (LFM).

• Trial judge had annulled the certificates, reasoning that the assessor missed the deadline and knew of the facts beforehand.

• Court of Appeal clarified that assessors may still act even if the triggering event occurred before the assessment roll was filed.

• The immutability of the tax roll was found to yield to statutory exceptions ensuring updated and accurate assessments.

• Appeal was allowed, and the modification certificates were declared legally valid.

Background and procedural history

The dispute arose between LBP Évaluateurs agréés inc. (the municipal assessor for the City of Blainville) and Condominiums Renaissance Blainville S.E.C., a real estate developer. In 2015, the developer began constructing an eight-story condominium building consisting of 74 units. The assessor initially created separate assessment units for each condo but only attributed land value, deferring the building value as many of the condos remained incomplete or unsold. By late 2017, 40 of the unsold condos were being retained and rented out by the developer.

During an inspection in July 2019, the assessor concluded these units were now substantially completed and occupied. Relying on section 174(7°) of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, the assessor issued 40 certificates modifying the 2019–2021 assessment roll to include building values retroactive to January 1, 2019.

The developer contested the legality of these certificates, and the Superior Court sided with the developer, ruling the assessor had no authority to make the modifications because the condition triggering them had already occurred before the roll’s deposit. The court declared the certificates null, effectively granting the developer a multi-year tax exemption on the building values.

Appeal and legal analysis

The assessor appealed, arguing that their obligation to maintain an up-to-date roll justified the issuance of the certificates. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge had misinterpreted the statutory framework. Specifically, the Court emphasized that the combined effect of sections 32 and 174(7°) LFM requires assessors to act when they become aware that a property has been substantially completed or occupied.

The Court further clarified that assessors are not barred from modifying the roll simply because the relevant events occurred before the roll’s official filing. While the timing affects the retroactivity of the modification, it does not invalidate the assessor’s duty to ensure the roll reflects the property’s current value. Here, the earliest possible retroactive date was January 1, 2019, which the assessor correctly applied.

The Court also rejected the idea that the assessor’s delay or lack of diligence amounted to grounds for nullity. Even if a more timely inspection could have revealed the rental status earlier, the assessor had a continuing statutory obligation to update the roll once new information became available. The developer’s lack of transparency in its dealings with the municipality further weakened its position.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturned the lower court’s decision, and upheld the validity of the 40 modification certificates. The ruling reaffirmed the assessor’s authority to revise the property roll under statutory exceptions, even after the roll’s filing, as long as procedural conditions are met. The developer was ordered to pay costs both in the lower court and on appeal.