Gatineau (Ville) c. Canada (Procureur général)

Gatineau (Ville) c. Canada (Procureur général)

The CCN was not legally bound to adopt the advisory panel's recommendations; the PERI statute and regulations govern valuation and prevail over conflicting interpretations of s.16(3) of the National Capital Act (per s.11(1) of the PERI Act); the CCN's decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes because it gave adequate reasons, considered objective constraints and UMEPP, afforded procedural opportunities which the City declined, and its divergence from the Committee's advice did not render the decision unreasonable; the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Municipalité de Chelsea binds the Court and disposes the judicial review.

Citation
2025 CF 1234
Parties
Applicant/demanderesse: Ville de Gatineau; Respondent/défendeur: Procureur général du Canada; Federal Office/office Fédéral Visé Par La Demande: Commission de la capitale nationale
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
judicial review application dismissed
Legal Topics
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (peri), Advisory Panel Role, Reasonableness Review, Legitimate Expectation, Delegation of Authority, Use and Valuation of Federal Property
Source Language
French
Administrative Law Municipal Taxation Federal Public Law Statutory Interpretation Environmental/land Management Payments in Lieu of Taxes (peri) Advisory Panel Role Reasonableness Review +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ville de Gatineau

Applicant/demanderesse

Procureur général du Canada

Respondent/défendeur

Commission de la capitale nationale

Federal Office/office Fédéral Visé Par La Demande

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission de la capitale nationale (CCN) was legally bound to follow the advisory panel's (Committee) recommendations
  2. 2 Whether the CCN's decision refusing to follow the Committee's advice was unreasonable under the reasonableness standard (Vavilov)
  3. 3 Whether s.16(3) of the National Capital Act displaces the federal PERI regime or requires a different valuation approach

Ratio Decidendi

The CCN was not legally bound to adopt the advisory panel's recommendations; the PERI statute and regulations govern valuation and prevail over conflicting interpretations of s.16(3) of the National Capital Act (per s.11(1) of the PERI Act); the CCN's decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes because it gave adequate reasons, considered objective constraints and UMEPP, afforded procedural opportunities which the City declined, and its divergence from the Committee's advice did not render the decision unreasonable; the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Municipalité de Chelsea binds the Court and disposes the judicial review.

Court Disposition

judicial review application dismissed

Orders

  • The judicial review application filed by the City of Gatineau against the Commission de la capitale nationale decision of 31 January 2022 is dismissed.
  • No costs are awarded.