côte saint‑luc (town of) v. stern, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 215
Town of Côte Saint‑Luc Appellant
v.
Gershon Stern and Zalman Stern Respondents
and
Montreal Urban Community Mis en cause
indexed as: côte saint‑luc (town of) v. stern
File No.: 18901.
1988: February 3.
Present: Beetz, Lamer, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Municipal law ‑‑ Business tax ‑‑ Entry of an immoveable on the roll of rental value ‑‑ Complaint ‑‑ Jurisdiction of the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment of Quebec.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, J.E. 84‑446, allowing in part an appeal from a judgment of Décary Prov. Ct. J., rendered October 30, 1980, dismissing the respondents' appeal from the decision of the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment rendered December 2, 1975. Appeal allowed.
David Kirshenblatt, Q.C., for the appellant.
Georges R. Thibaudeau, for the respondents.
Gérard Beaupré, Q.C., and Marie Charest, for the mis en cause.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1. Beetz J.‑‑My brother Justice Lamer will deliver the Court's judgment.
2. Lamer J.‑‑The jurisdiction of the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment of Quebec to decide complaints before it was raised in this Court for the first time.
3. This Court therefore does not have the benefit of the Court of Appeal and Provincial Court judgments on this aspect of the matter. Moreover, had this argument been raised sooner, it would have been only fair to allow the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment of Quebec to intervene in order to defend its jurisdiction.
4. In view of the fact that the proceedings in the instant case began over twelve years ago, we all consider that it would not be in the interests of justice to postpone the hearing in order to allow the Board to intervene and defend its jurisdiction, still less to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal for it to hear the case and rule on this aspect of the appeal.
5. In light of these circumstances, we all consider that this appeal should be disposed of as follows.
6. Assuming without deciding the point that the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment of Quebec had the required jurisdiction to decide complaints before it, we all essentially concur in the reasons and findings of Decary Prov. Ct. J. This appeal should be allowed accordingly, with costs throughout in favour of the Town of Côte Saint‑Luc.
7. The judgment of the Provincial Court affirming the decision of the Board of Revision of the Real Estate Assessment of Quebec to dismiss the complaints is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Kirshenblatt & Crestohl, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondents: MacKenzie, Gervais, Montréal.
Solicitors for the mis en cause: Beaupré, Trudeau, Montréal.