Nipigon v. Red Rock

Nipigon v. Red Rock

The agreement's sharing formula referred to the assessment formula (the basis on which assessments were calculated) in force when the agreement was made (1940 cost basis); a subsequent reassessment of Red Rock on a different basis did not alter the contractual apportionment and the word "actual" did not import a change of basis.

Citation
[1975] 1 SCR 40
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: The Corporation of the Township of Nipigon; Respondent/defendant: The Corporation of the Improvement District of Red Rock
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 1973
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Cost Sharing Agreement, Assessment Basis, Debenture Apportionment, Reassessment Effects, Interpretation of "actual" Assessments
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Contract Law Education Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Cost Sharing Agreement Assessment Basis Debenture Apportionment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Corporation of the Township of Nipigon

Appellant/plaintiff

The Corporation of the Improvement District of Red Rock

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement's apportionment refers to the assessment basis in force when the agreement was made or to assessment values from time to time
  2. 2 Whether a unilateral reassessment of one municipality on a different basis alters the contractual sharing formula
  3. 3 Whether the term "actual" in the agreement imports a dynamic change in assessment basis

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement's sharing formula referred to the assessment formula (the basis on which assessments were calculated) in force when the agreement was made (1940 cost basis); a subsequent reassessment of Red Rock on a different basis did not alter the contractual apportionment and the word "actual" did not import a change of basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment for respondent (Red Rock) for $13,234.50.