CASUAL LEGAL: The Scope of Disclosure under Section 299(1) of the Municipal Government Act

The Scope of Disclosure under Section 299(1) of the Municipal Government Act

By Breanne Schwanak

Reynolds Mirth Richards Farmer LLP

AMSC Casual Legal Service Provider

In a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Court considered the appropriate scope of section 299(1) of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”).

In 2016, the owners of three commercial properties in downtown Edmonton challenged the assessment of the properties by filing complaints with the Assessment Review Board (the “ARB”). The owners also applied for disclosure of the information showing how the assessor prepared the assessments under section 299(1) of the MGA. The City provided the owners with responses containing a summary of each assessment and some supporting information; however, certain studies (the “Studies”) considering comparator information about properties in downtown Edmonton owned by third parties, upon which the assessor relied, were not produced until shortly before the hearing commenced.

At the hearing of the complaints, the owners objected to the ARB’s consideration of the Studies relied upon by the City, as the Studies had not been disclosed in response to the owners’ request under section 299(1) of the MGA. The City did not dispute the assessor relied on the Studies but argued it was not obliged to disclose the Studies as section 299(1) of the MGA only required it to disclose information related to the assessed properties themselves and not other third party information.

In a preliminary ruling, the ARB determined section 299 of the MGA required the City to disclose the Studies, and having failed to do so, the Studies should be excluded from evidence in accordance with the Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation (the “MRAC”). The City appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, which set aside the ARB’s ruling. The owners further appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal. 

The Court of Appeal emphasized its prior findings that the “central purpose of taxpayer information rights is to provide taxpayers with information about the preparation of their tax assessments so that they know whether to make a complaint and if so on what grounds”. The Court rejected the argument that because the MRAC requires the City to disclose all evidence upon which it intends to rely on at a hearing in advance of the hearing, section 299 of the MGA must necessarily require less. In its view, this interpretation could lead a taxpayer to decide not to pursue a complaint where a “potentially good ground of complaint exists but never becomes known because the City would only have to disclose same if the taxpayer made a complaint.”

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal stated that if section 299(1) of the MGA was interpreted as only requiring partial disclosure, insufficient to determine the basis of the assessment and the grounds for an appeal, disclosure would serve little purpose. The appeal was allowed and the preliminary ruling of the ARB was restored.

To access AMSC’s Casual Legal Helpline, AUMA members can call toll-free to 1-888-668-9198 or email casuallegal [at] amsc.ca (casuallegal[at]amsc[dot]ca) and reach the municipal legal experts at Reynolds Mirth Richards and Farmer LLP.  For more information on the Casual Legal Service, please contact Will Burtenshaw, Director – Risk Management Services, at (780) 409-7450, or toll-free at 310-AUMA (2862) or via email at wburtenshaw [at] auma.ca (wburtenshaw[at]auma[dot]ca).  Any Regular or Associate member of the AUMA can access the Casual Legal Service. 

DISCLAIMER: This article is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. You should seek the advice of legal counsel to address your specific set of circumstances. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this article to be outdated.