Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional challenge centered on whether the Court of King’s Bench had authority over municipal tax disputes governed by statutory boards.

• Plaintiff alleged tax was improperly collected on exempt municipal land and sought repayment under protest.

• The lease’s interpretation as a tax agreement raised questions about the meaning and application of s. 291 of The Municipalities Act.

• Defendant failed to provide required assessment and tax notices, yet argued that statutory remedies had been available.

• Plaintiff’s claim was deemed a collateral attack on previous administrative decisions despite not directly re-litigating them.

• Court struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process, citing comprehensive statutory regime.

Factual background and procedural history

More & Better Asset Development Corp. (M&B) entered into a long-term lease with the Town of Fort Qu’Appelle in 2019 for 0.44 acres of municipally owned land, including four rental cabins. As part of the lease, M&B agreed to pay property taxes on the leased property. Shortly after taking possession, M&B began receiving invoices from the Town for “Lease Agreement Taxes” amounting to over $6,000 annually. M&B made some of these payments under protest, arguing that it never received proper assessment or tax notices in accordance with The Municipalities Act and that the property was listed as tax-exempt.

In April 2020, M&B received a Notice of Assessment showing the Town as the assessed person and the land and improvements as exempt from taxation. M&B appealed the assessment to the Board of Revision, and later to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board’s Assessment Appeals Committee. Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the classification of the property as commercial and taxable. M&B was denied leave to appeal further by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Despite those rulings, M&B filed a Statement of Claim in the Court of King’s Bench in 2021, seeking a declaration that the lease was not a tax agreement under s. 291 of The Municipalities Act, repayment of over $15,000 in taxes paid under protest, and punitive damages. The Town applied to strike the claim or, alternatively, for summary dismissal.

Legal analysis and decision

The Court considered whether the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action or was an abuse of process. Justice Bergbusch ruled that the entirety of M&B’s claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal Board of Revision and the Assessment Appeals Committee. The statutory scheme in The Municipalities Act and The Municipal Board Act was deemed a complete code governing municipal property assessment, exemptions, and tax liability. The Court held that the plaintiff could have pursued or expanded its statutory appeal but did not, and thus could not now seek remedies in court.

Further, the Court found that equitable or common law claims like unjust enrichment or negligence could not override the legislative regime. While the Town had failed to issue proper assessment and tax notices, the Court concluded this procedural flaw did not invalidate the statutory process, and M&B had still received sufficient notice to appeal. The claim was also viewed as an improper attempt to bypass the statutory appeal results—a collateral attack.

The Court found no basis to convert the action to a judicial review application. Judicial review might be available where no statutory remedy exists, but here, the Act provided one. M&B had used the appeal process and simply disagreed with the outcome.

Final disposition

The Court struck the Statement of Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend. While the Town succeeded, it was denied costs due to its own failure to issue the required notices, which contributed to the litigation.