Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute focused on the transfer of title to a commercial property from D-S Automotive Ltd. to the City of Moose Jaw due to unpaid property taxes under The Tax Enforcement Act.

• D-S Automotive Ltd. and Vernon Anderson challenged the property’s 2016 assessment and the subsequent tax enforcement process, including the validity of the assessment and the City’s actions.

• Promissory estoppel was argued by Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. based on the City’s acceptance of a late tax payment after title had transferred.

• The doctrine of laches was raised, alleging unreasonable delay or acquiescence by the City, but was rejected by the Chambers judge.

• The Chambers judge determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment in favor of the City, including an order for possession.

• The Court of Appeal found the appeal was manifestly without merit, quashed the appeal, and declined to make any award of costs.

Background and facts of the case

The case arose from a dispute over the ownership of a commercial property legally described as Lots 21-31/Par 125 Plan OLD96, Extension 0, located in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Until December 3, 2021, D-S Automotive Ltd. held title to the property. However, after failing to pay property taxes for a number of years, title was transferred to the City of Moose Jaw under The Tax Enforcement Act, RSS 1978, c T-2. In 2016, the property was assessed at $1,724,100.00, a significant increase from the previous assessment of $542,300.00. D-S Automotive Ltd. disagreed with the new assessment, refused to pay taxes based on it, and the City registered a tax lien on August 29, 2018.

Despite appealing the assessment, Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. were unsuccessful. The City proceeded under the TEA, obtaining consent under The Provincial Mediation Board Act and issuing notices in May and October 2021. On December 3, 2021, the City took title to the property. On January 11, 2022, Anderson paid $155,737.76 in property tax arrears to City staff, who were unaware that title had already passed. The City attempted to return the funds, but Anderson refused, claiming entitlement to the property. D-S Automotive Ltd. continued to occupy the property until the spring of 2025.

Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. then brought an originating application seeking a declaration that the taxes had been paid and that they should be allowed to remain in possession. The City applied for summary judgment dismissing the application and for an order for possession.

Proceedings and legal arguments

The Chambers judge was asked to determine if summary judgment was appropriate, whether promissory estoppel or laches applied, and if the City was entitled to possession. The judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial. The claim of promissory estoppel failed because the City’s acceptance of payment was an error, not a clear or intentional representation, and there was no legal relationship at the time of payment. The argument of laches was also rejected, as the City had acted in the ordinary course and had not acquiesced to Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. retaining title.

The Chambers judge dismissed the application by Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. and granted the City’s request for a writ of possession.

Outcome at the Court of Appeal

Anderson and D-S Automotive Ltd. appealed, raising issues about the assessment process, the City’s conduct, and procedural matters. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal did not identify any error of law or fact by the Chambers judge and that the grounds of appeal did not arise from the Chambers judge’s decision. The Court found the appeal was manifestly without merit and granted the City’s application to quash the appeal.

No monetary award or damages were granted, and the Court declined to make any order for costs in connection with the appeal or related applications. The City of Moose Jaw was the successful party, but no specific amount was ordered in its favor.