Federal court | Administrative Law
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Interest due given respondents had means to calculate taxes due
Applicant sought judicial review of respondents’ decision that dismissed payment of interest on sums due. Applicant claimed that decision was unreasonable and lacked transparency in decision-making process. Supreme Court confirmed decisions rendered previously, ordering payment of sums as replacement of property taxes due. After decision of Supreme Court, respondents refused to pay interests. Application allowed. Court affirmed that decision not to pay sums was not based on impossibility to calculate them, but rather in respondents’ claim that sums paid as business tax could be deducted. Court affirmed that interests were due to circumstances of case and failure of respondents to make provisional payment. Interests were due given that respondents had all means to calculate taxes due and were duly notified according to terms of applicable legislation.
Montreal (Ville de) v. Administration Portuaire de Montreal (July 27, 2011, F.C., Martineau J., File No. T-833-10; T-936-10) Reasons in French. 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 878 (17 pp.).
Interest due given respondents had means to calculate taxes due
Applicant sought judicial review of respondents’ decision that dismissed payment of interest on sums due. Applicant claimed that decision was unreasonable and lacked transparency in decision-making process. Supreme Court confirmed decisions rendered previously, ordering payment of sums as replacement of property taxes due. After decision of Supreme Court, respondents refused to pay interests. Application allowed. Court affirmed that decision not to pay sums was not based on impossibility to calculate them, but rather in respondents’ claim that sums paid as business tax could be deducted. Court affirmed that interests were due to circumstances of case and failure of respondents to make provisional payment. Interests were due given that respondents had all means to calculate taxes due and were duly notified according to terms of applicable legislation.
Montreal (Ville de) v. Administration Portuaire de Montreal (July 27, 2011, F.C., Martineau J., File No. T-833-10; T-936-10) Reasons in French. 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 878 (17 pp.).
