Collins v. Nova Scotia (Assessment)

Collins v. Nova Scotia (Assessment) Court Court of Appeal Date 2005-02-01 Citation 2005 NSCA 19 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator MacDonald, J. Michael (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Cromwell, Thomas A. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Collins v. Nova Scotia (Assessment) - 2005 NSCA 19 - 2005-02-01 - Library Sheet Decision Content NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Collins v. Nova Scotia (Assessment), 2005 NSCA 19 Date: 20050201 Docket: CA 213301 Registry: Halifax Between: Emilia M. Collins Appellant v. Director of Assessment for the Province of Nova Scotia Respondent Judges: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Roscoe, Cromwell, J.J.A. Appeal Heard: January 24, 2005, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Held: Appeal dismissed, per reasons for judgment of Roscoe, J.A., MacDonald, C.J.N.S. and Cromwell, J.A., concurring. Counsel: Richard Collins, agent for the appellant, by telephone conference with leave of the Court Randall R. Duplak, Q.C., for the respondent Reasons for judgment: [1] This is an appeal from a pre-hearing conference decision made by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board dismissing the appellant’s application for disclosure and providing directions regarding the extent of the record in an upcoming property tax assessment appeal. [2] The matter concerning the assessment of property previously owned by the appellant was remitted to the Board by this court in a decision reported as 2001 NSCA 178; [2001] N.S.J. No. 509 (Q.L.) because the court was not satisfied that the appellant had received notice of an earlier Board appeal hearing, held in October 2000. [3] In the decision now under appeal, the Board member declined the appellant’s application for disclosure relating to delay in the scheduling of the earlier Board appeal because it was not relevant to the issue presently before the Board, that is, the validity of the 1995 assessment. Although the appellant submitted that the Board indicated it lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure, that is not our reading of its decision. The Board stated that it did not have the power to quash the 1995 assessment based on delay relating to the first appeal heard by the Board. [4] The role of this court in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited to reviewing questions as to jurisdiction or law. (s. 30 of the Utility and Review Board Act, S.N.S. 1992, c.11) We do not interfere with the Board’s exercise of its discretion in preliminary or procedural matters. As indicated in Certain Ratepayers of Chester (District) v. Chester ( District), [2000] N.S.J. No. 29, 2000 NSCA 19: 16 [The Utility and Review Board] enjoys a discretionary jurisdiction to manage its process subject to the governing statutes so as to ensure a full and fair hearing on the ultimate issue. In interlocutory matters such as this, that do not determine the outcome of the main proceeding, this court should follow the non‑ interventionist approach which governs in civil appeals. This was expressed by Justice Chipman in Saulnier v. Dartmouth Fuels Ltd. ( 1991), 106 N.S.R. (2d) 425 (N.S.C.A.) as follows, at p. 427: The principles which govern us on an appeal from a discretionary order are well‑settled. We will not interfere with such an order unless wrong principles of law have been applied or a patent injustice would result. The burden of proof upon the appellant is heavy. Exco Corporation Limited v. Nova Scotia Savings and Loan et al. (1983), 59 N.S.R. (2d) 331; 125 A.P.R. 331, at 333, and Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Morgentaler (1990), 96 N.S.R. (2d) 54; 253 A.P.R. 54, at 57. [5] In our view the Board was correct in its determination that the delay in scheduling matters before it is not relevant to the issue of the assessment of the property at issue. All other matters dealt with in the decision under appeal are matters of process before the Board and we see no basis to interfere with the exercise of that discretion at this interlocutory stage. [6] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Although this is a tribunal appeal, we nonetheless order the appellant to pay costs in the amount of $500 including disbursements to the respondent, Director of Assessment, payable forthwith. Roscoe, J.A. Concurred in: MacDonald, C.J.N.S. Cromwell, J.A.