Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

CROWN

                                                                                          Real Property

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. M‑13 (PLTA) providing for fair and equitable payments in lieu of taxes (PLTs) to taxing authorities—Applicant arguing amounts subtracted arbitrarily and unlawfully from payment in lieu of real property tax (PLRPT) established by respondent—Dispute over decision to apply effective rate different from rate applicable to non‑residential immovables to all of respondent’s properties subject to PLRPT—Also, whether respondent’s piers and silos lawfully excluded from calculation of PLRPT payable under Crown Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81‑1030 (CCPR), ss. 6, 7—Respondent’s decision to reduce effective rate contrary to CCPR, s. 6 and purpose of PLTA, providing for fair and equitable payments in lieu of taxes to municipalies—Piers excluded from definition of “corporation property” under PLTA, Schedule II, therefore not included in calculation of PLRPT—Silos not reservoirs, therefore not excluded—Application allowed in part.

Montréal (City) v. Montréal (Port Authority) (T‑795‑04, 2007 FC 701, Martineau J., order dated 5/7/07, 88 pp.)

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. M‑13 (PLTA) providing for fair and equitable payments in lieu of taxes (PLTs) to taxing authorities—Judicial review of decision of Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) deducting $177,404.38 from next payment in lieu of real property tax (PLRPT) to applicant under PLTA—PLTs may be paid in respect of any immovable or real property meeting definition of “federal property” in PLTA or “corporation property” in Crown Corporation Payments Regulations, SOR/81‑1030—S. 2(3)(h) (exception to definition of “federal property”) applying to lessees and sublessees—However, PLTA, s. 3.1, stipulating  “Real property and immovables referred to in s. 2(3)(h) are deemed to be federal property for a taxation year” if certain conditions are met, as in case at bar—Application allowed.

                   Montréal (City) v. Canada (Attorney General) (T‑1828‑06, 2007 FC 702, Martineau J., order dated 5/7/07, 39                 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.