Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) to annul or declare null an assessment modification notice under the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale.
• Proper forum for challenges to the legality and validity (nullity/cassation) of assessment roll inscriptions versus challenges to their accuracy, in light of articles 171 and 172 LFM.
• Legal impact of non-compliance with article 12.2 of the Règlement sur la forme ou le contenu minimal de divers documents relatifs à la fiscalité municipale when an assessment modification notice omits the identification of the modified inscription.
• Role of article 3 LFM in restricting actions based on omitted formalities to situations involving proof of real prejudice or express statutory nullity.
• Application of stare decisis requiring the TAQ and the Court of Québec to follow binding appellate and Superior Court precedent on municipal tax jurisdiction.
• Consequences of the jurisdictional error on the taxpayer’s recourse, including the dismissal of the challenge to the notice of modification and an order for judicial costs against Résidence Les Ficelles.

Factual background and the assessment dispute
Résidence Les Ficelles, operated by 9301-7689 Québec inc., runs seniors’ housing facilities in Laval, including a property at 3860 boulevard Lévesque Ouest. The owner obtained from Ville de Laval a construction-improvement permit on 24 March 2017 to enlarge the building, with the works estimated at around 2 000 000 $. Following completion of the works, the municipal assessor issued, on 12 February 2018, a certificate of modification to the assessment roll. The value of the relevant assessment unit increased from 6 492 200 $ to 9 394 100 $, reflecting the impact of the improvements on the property’s taxable value. On 5 March 2018, the City clerk sent Résidence Les Ficelles an “avis de modification” (notice of modification) to the assessment roll, together with a complementary tax bill of 14 819,25 $. Within the statutory delay, on 12 April 2018, Résidence Les Ficelles filed a request for revision of the property assessment roll. Several grounds were initially raised but later withdrawn, leaving in issue only the alleged non-compliance of the modification notice with the applicable regulatory requirements. The taxpayer’s central allegation was that the notice was illegal because it did not indicate the modification that had been made to the roll, a deficiency that Ville de Laval admitted. The dispute thus crystallized around whether this omission rendered the modification notice null and whether the specialized tribunal had authority to make such a finding.

Legislative and regulatory framework governing the notice
The legal framework is rooted in the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (LFM) and the Règlement sur la forme ou le contenu minimal de divers documents relatifs à la fiscalité municipale. Article 12.2 of that regulation prescribes mandatory content for an assessment modification notice, in addition to what is required by article 180 LFM. The notice must identify the roll affected, the inscriptions on the roll that are modified, the legislative provision under which the modification is made, and the effective date of the modification. In this case, both parties accepted that the notice sent by Ville de Laval failed to include the identification of the affected inscriptions, thereby breaching paragraph 2 of article 12.2. Article 3 LFM also plays a key role. It provides that no action, defence or exception based on an omission of formalities—even mandatory ones—by a municipality, its bodies or an assessor is admissible unless the omission has caused a real prejudice, or unless the law expressly states that non-observance of the formal requirement leads to nullity of the act in which it was omitted. Parallel to the taxation statute, the Loi sur la justice administrative establishes the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ), its mission, and the scope of its jurisdiction. Article 1 stresses the objectives of quality, speed, accessibility and respect of fundamental rights in administrative justice, while article 15 empowers the TAQ to decide all questions of law and fact necessary to exercise its jurisdiction and, where appropriate, to confirm, modify or overturn the administrative decision under review and substitute its own. Article 32 assigns the real estate section of the TAQ responsibility for disputes concerning the accuracy, presence or absence of inscriptions on the property assessment roll or rental value roll, as well as certain related valuation and compensation matters.

Proceedings and decision before the Tribunal administratif du Québec
When the matter reached the TAQ’s real estate section, Résidence Les Ficelles argued that the failure to identify the modified inscription on the roll made the notice of modification illegal and void. The TAQ’s decision of 5 September 2023 accepted the taxpayer’s position on both jurisdiction and merits. First, the TAQ concluded that it had jurisdiction not only to rule on the accuracy or presence of roll inscriptions but also to examine the legality and nullity of the modification notice itself. It took the view that its statutory mandate, coupled with its specialized expertise in property assessment, allowed it to pronounce on the validity of such instruments notwithstanding earlier case law of higher courts. Second, the TAQ analysed article 12.2 of the regulation and held that the omission to identify the modified inscription was more than a simple technical defect. In its view, the missing information undermined a fundamental right of taxpayers to be adequately informed of changes to their assessment, thereby affecting the substance of the procedure rather than mere form. On that basis, the TAQ determined that the non-compliance justified the nullity of the notice of modification. Third, the TAQ addressed article 3 LFM and found that it did not govern this kind of irregularity. It characterized the breach as a substantial defect falling outside the concept of omitted “formalities” contemplated by article 3. As a result, the TAQ held that Résidence Les Ficelles did not need to prove a real prejudice to obtain nullity. The consequence of the TAQ’s ruling was to declare the notice of modification null and to restore the inscriptions of the assessment unit as they appeared on the previous triennial roll, effectively cancelling the increase in property value and the associated additional taxation.

The appeal to the Court of Québec and the issues framed
Ville de Laval, dissatisfied with the TAQ’s outcome and its expansive view of its own powers, applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Québec in its administrative and appeal division. The leave judgment identified two main questions. First, did the TAQ err in declaring itself competent to annul an assessment modification notice within the meaning of the LFM? Second, did the TAQ commit a reviewable error in finding that failure to comply with a required mention under article 12.2 of the regulation leads to nullity of the notice without proof of real prejudice? On the applicable standard of review, both parties accepted, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov and subsequent appellate guidance, that issues of jurisdiction and pure law attract the standard of correctness on an appeal from an administrative body. For the second question, which touched more closely on the application of legal standards to the facts, there was disagreement on the appropriate standard, but the Court ultimately did not need to resolve it because of its answer to the jurisdictional question.

Analysis of jurisdiction, stare decisis and the proper forum
The Court of Québec’s analysis concentrated on whether the TAQ had jurisdiction to decide on the legality and nullity of the modification notice. It conducted an extensive review of jurisprudence, starting with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ivanhoé Corporation, which established that while assessment review bodies may hear complaints about the value entered on the roll, the recourses in cassation or nullity of all or part of a roll for illegality belong to the courts of ordinary jurisdiction. Subsequent appellate and Superior Court decisions in the Cours Mont-Royal cases reinforced this division by distinguishing challenges to the correctness of an assessor’s valuation (for the specialized body) from challenges to the legal validity of the role or an inscription (for the Superior Court). The Court placed particular weight on the Superior Court’s landmark decision in Ville de Drummondville, which thoroughly examined the statutory scheme of the LFM, including articles 171 and 172 governing recourses in cassation and nullity. In Drummondville, the Superior Court concluded that only the Superior Court has jurisdiction over recourses seeking the nullity or cassation of a certificate or notice of modification to the assessment roll and that the TAQ’s jurisdiction is confined to assessing the accuracy, presence or absence of inscriptions on the roll. The Court of Québec considered that this reasoning, later endorsed or followed in cases such as Adamax Immobilier and Condominiums Renaissance Blainville, created a clear and binding line of authority. Against this backdrop, the Court held that the TAQ had erred by effectively rejecting this vertical stare decisis. The TAQ had attempted to distinguish or discount Ivanhoé and Drummondville, leaned on earlier or less directly relevant decisions (including some of its own), and even relied on a Court of Québec judgment that had been overturned. It also invoked efficiency and the desire to provide a single forum as policy reasons to assert jurisdiction over annulment, but the Court of Québec stressed that policy considerations cannot override the jurisdictional boundaries drawn by the legislature and interpreted by higher courts. On a proper reading of the statutory scheme and the binding jurisprudence, only the Superior Court may entertain recourses in nullity or cassation under articles 171 and 172 LFM. The TAQ remains limited to disputes on the accuracy and existence of entries on the roll and cannot declare an assessment modification notice legally null.

Consequences for the regulatory defect and the outcome
In light of its conclusion on jurisdiction, the Court of Québec accepted that while the irregularity in the notice was real—the failure to identify the affected inscription under article 12.2 of the regulation—the TAQ had no authority to annul the notice on that basis. Any recourse grounded in illegality and seeking nullity should have been brought to the Superior Court by way of cassation or judicial review. Once this fundamental jurisdictional error was identified, it was unnecessary for the Court of Québec to address the second question on the merits: whether the omission of the required information under article 12.2 automatically entailed nullity of the notice, and whether article 3 LFM required proof of real prejudice or an express statutory nullity clause. The Court therefore declined to rule on whether the defect was a mere formality or a substantive irregularity and did not undertake any fresh assessment of prejudice to the taxpayer. Instead, it allowed the appeal, set aside the TAQ’s decision of 5 September 2023, and substituted its own disposition, dismissing the recourse of 9301-7689 Québec inc. (Résidence Les Ficelles). The result is that the City’s modification notice and the increased assessment remain in force, and the previous triennial roll entries are not reinstated. In the dispositive part of the judgment, the Court ordered Résidence Les Ficelles to pay the judicial costs (frais de justice), confirming Ville de Laval as the successful party. The judgment does not fix any specific dollar amount for those costs or for any other monetary recovery in favour of the City, and while it records a complementary tax bill of 14 819,25 $ as part of the factual background, that sum is not expressly awarded by the Court. Accordingly, Ville de Laval prevails on appeal and obtains its costs, but the total monetary award and recoverable amounts in its favour cannot be determined from the text of the decision.