2022 MBKB 184, 2022 MBKB 184

Date: 20221003 Docket: CI 17-01-10466 Related files: CI 15-01-93312 CI 16-01-00421 CI 16-01-00424 CI 16-01-00431 CI 16-01-00862 CI 18-01-13361 CI 18-01-13362 CI 18-01-18445 CI 19-01-25179 CI 20-01-25963 CI 20-01-26158 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: The WSD v. City of Winnipeg et al. Cited as: 2022 MBKB 184 COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: ) Appearances : THE WINNIPEG SCHOOL DIVISION, ) ) Mark Newman, David Thiessen ) and Alexa M. Smith, ) for the applicant - and - ) ) Kalyn B. Bomback , ) for the respondent, CITY OF WINNIPEG AND ASSESSOR FOR ) The City of Winnipeg CITY OF WINNIPEG, ) ) Denis G.

Guénette , respondents. ) for the respondent, ) The Provincial Municipal ) Assessor ) ) JUDGMENT DELIVERED: ) October 3, 2022 EDMOND J.

Introduction [ 1 ] This is a statutory appeal pursuant to s. 56(1) of The Municipal Assessment Act , C.C.S.M. c. M226 (the “ MA Act ”), dealing with assessments made regarding liability to pay municipal taxation concerning approximately 23 buildings; 21 located in the City of Winnipeg and two buildings located outside the City of Winnipeg, with one in the Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, and the other in the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul. [ 2 ] The appeals arise by virtue of:

a) Appeals to the Board of Revision for the City of Winnipeg, or the Rural Municipalities, seeking an exemption from taxation pursuant to s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act ;

b) Decisions made by the Board of Revision allowing or denying the request for exemption, or subsequently by a later cycle of assessment appeals allowing the exemption; and

c) Appeals by the unsuccessful party to this court. [ 3 ] The various applications were case managed and proceeded pursuant to a consent order to hear twelve Notices of Application in respect of five properties. The parties cooperated and filed Agreed Statements of Fact in respect of each of the properties as well as affidavit material. Although cross-examinations were allowed, no cross-examinations upon the affidavits were conducted. [ 4 ] The applications concern the statutory

interpretation of s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act , which provides in the French and English versions as follows: Real property partial exemptions 22(1) Subject to sections 25 and 26, real property is exempt from taxation levied by a municipality, other than for local improvements, where the real property Exemptions partielles 22(1) Sous r é serve des articles 25 et 26, les biens r é els sont exempts de la taxe municipale à l’exception de la taxe pour les travaux d’am é liorations locales, dans les cas suivants : (

d) is used for a public school within the meaning of The Public Schools Act or a private school within the meaning of The Education Administration Act , to a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares;

d) ils sont utilis é s pour les besoins d’une é cole publique au sens de la

Loi sur les é coles publiques ou d’une é cole priv é e au sens de la

Loi sur l’administration scolaire , la superficie maximale exempt é e é tant de 4,047 hectares; [ 5 ] The issue for determination on this appeal is whether the real property referenced is “used for a public school within the meaning of The Public Schools Act ” and is therefore exempt from taxation other than for local improvements under the MA Act . Background Facts [ 6 ] The evidence filed consists of Agreed Statements of Fact (“ASF”) for each of the properties that are the subject matter of this appeal and the following affidavits:

a) Affidavit of Paul Kochan, sworn May 5, 2022, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary-Treasurer of the Winnipeg School Division (“WSD”);

b) Affidavit of Jamie Rudnicki, sworn April 29, 2022, Secretary-Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Louis Riel School Division (“LRSD”);

c) Affidavit of Jennifer Maitre, sworn May 4, 2022, Secretary-Treasurer of the Seven Oaks School Division (“SOSD”);

d) Affidavit of Brian Dupuis, affirmed May 11, 2022, Area Coordinator of the Multifamily Division of the Assessment and Taxation Department of the City of Winnipeg. [ 7 ] The parties agreed to submit appeals respecting the following five properties: a) 50 Monterey Road in the City of Winnipeg, in the LRSD, which is a resource property/maintenance building/hybrid building (the “Monterey property”); b) 1075 Wellington Avenue in the City of Winnipeg in the WSD, which is a resource property (the “Wellington property”); c) 1395 Spruce in the City of Winnipeg, in the WSD, which is a maintenance building; d) 1397 Spruce in the City of Winnipeg, in the WSD, which is a maintenance building (1395 and 1397 Spruce are collectively referred to as the “Spruce properties”); and

e) 1985 Grassmere, in the Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, in the SOSD, which is a bus service/maintenance building/hybrid (the “Grassmere property”). [ 8 ] There is no dispute regarding the detailed description of each of the buildings which is the subject of this appeal. A detailed description is found in the ASF for each of the properties and is accurately summarized by applicant’s counsel as follows:

a) Monterey property i. t he building is a 25,003 square foot building located on 166,250 square feet of land which was formerly a school (para 7 of ASF); ii. a floor plan of the building is found commencing at Tab 9 of the ASF; iii. a variety of programs operate out of the building which include the Clinical Services Unit (“CSU”) (paras 15 a), 17-27 of ASF) which provides the following services: • an Occupational Therapy group of 12 Occupational Therapists, with 4.5 Full Time Equivalent (“FTE”) therapists based at 50 Monterey, and 5.5 FTE Occupational Therapists based in the schools themselves; • a speech and language pathology working group which has 10 Speech and Language Pathologists based at the property who work directly with students; • a psychology working group which has nine Psychologists based at the property who work directly with students; • a social work group which has 11 Social Workers who work directly with students and their families; • a physiotherapy working group which has three Physiotherapists who work directly with students; • child and youth care support group which has four Child and Youth Care Support Workers who work directly with students and their families; • a CSU library is also located at the property. iv.

The Quest program which provides schooling to high school students requiring alternative programming is located on site at the property. Staffing consists of one teacher and one educational assistant, and the program is essentially a one-room alternative school for students who have missed significant portions of learning either due to attendance or learning challenges (paras 15

a) xiii-xv and paras 23-27 of ASF); v. International Student Program (ISP) is a program which includes the staff detailed at paragraph 15

b) of the ASF and essentially allows access for international students who come to Manitoba and enter the public school system. The students reside with homestay families and this

section of the property has a high level of student activity because students attend to meet homestay families, pay tuition and living accommodation fees, allow students in the program to socialize at regularly scheduled events, all of which is detailed at paras 28-42 of ASF; vi. the Facilities Department which occupies 2,703 square feet (paras 15

c) and 46-49 of ASF) as detailed at Tab 10 of the ASF. The Facilities Department is responsible for all construction and maintenance related activities relating to the operation of school buildings operating in a safe and efficient manner; vii. there are also shared meeting rooms located within the building (para 15 d)), which are used frequently by students as part of the ISP; viii. a gymnasium used for storage by all departments which occupy the building.

b) Wellington property i. the building is 29,021 square feet on 70,000 square feet of land (paras 7-8 of ASF); ii. a floor plan of the building is found commencing at Tab 9 of ASF; iii. the building was formerly the Prince Charles School and now operates as the Prince Charles Education Resource Centre with a variety of programs operating out of the building (paras 20-21 of ASF), which includes the following programs: • Interdivisional Student Services providing education programming for students from across the province who are clients or patients of various Winnipeg area facilities which include: - Children’s Hospital, Health Sciences Centre; - Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Inpatient Classrooms - Psych Health, Health Sciences Centre; - Eating Disorders Clinic Classroom, Adolescent Day Hospital, Health Sciences Centre; - Neurodevelopmental Autism - Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre; - Montcalm School - Intensive Community Reintegration Services;

- Villa Rosa Classrooms for pregnant and post-natal students; - Youth Educational Services for Women’s Shelters; - Anxiety Disorders Service - Health Sciences Centre; - Student Mental Health Resource Team – Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre; - Tourette Syndrome Service and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Services - Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre; - Youth Justice Educational Intake Initiative - Manitoba Youth Centre & Agassiz Youth Centre. iv. the programming described above is overseen by a Principal and Vice Principal who are located at the Wellington property, and Tab 8 of the ASF describes in greater detail these various programs; v. these programs are directed at students who, for various reasons, cannot participate in schooling in traditional schools with the result that schooling is provided to them at alternate locations; vi. an audiovisual computer repair and centralized repair facility for the school division is located at the Wellington property and is detailed at Tab 9 with photos.

Further detail is found at paras 36-37 of the ASF and all school computers and audiovisual equipment are maintained and repaired at this location; vii. clinical support services for students (“CSS”) operate out of the Wellington property and include the following disciplines (para 21

c) of ASF): • a total of 109.44 FTE clinicians which include the fields of psychology, speech pathology, reading and social work with offices for the Director of Clinical Services, Administrative Assistant to the Director, and two clerks and other employees (see Tab 10 and photos); • three speech pathologists (see Tab 11 and following photos); • two audiologists as well as an audiometric technician and clerk which provides audiological testing for students as reflected at Tab 12 and the following photos. All audiological testing of students of the school division occurs at 1075 Wellington.

The number of students who have attended at 1075 Wellington for testing has ranged from 820 in 2017/18, 750 in 2018/19, 452 in 2019/20 up to the closure of schools in March 2020 due to COVID, and 530 at March 2021 (paras 23-26 of ASF); • four of the schools in the school division, Carpathia, Elmwood, John M.

King and Tyndall Park, have work areas for the clinical psychologists, reading clinicians, social workers and speech and language pathologists to work (paras 42-43 of ASF). viii. the Wellington property also contains Library Support Services which provides resource materials for teaching staff throughout the school division (see Tab 13 and following photos). Greater detail is found at paras 29-35 of the ASF, and among other things it provides in-service programming to teachers and provides resources for teachers; ix. the Wellington property includes professional support services (see para 21

g) of ASF) which provides teacher consultants and support staff for teachers which includes 24 individuals who assist schools in setting and meeting literacy and numeracy targets.

The majority of the delivery of services takes place at individual schools, but the Professional Support Services Team uses the Wellington property for meetings, training workshops, professional learning preparation, and general planning; x. summer services are provided by Clinical Support Services to students of the school division through the summer with students physically attending the Wellington property to access the services which include speech therapy, speech development programs, reading assessments, psychological assessments and social work support (see para 21

h) and paras 49-50 of ASF); xi. student tutoring is offered for up to five students at a time who receive direct tutoring in subject areas in the tutoring rooms located at the Wellington property. In 2017/18, 72 students received tutoring with the majority of the sessions occurring at the Wellington property (see paras 27-28 of ASF).

c) Grassmere property i. there are multiple buildings located on the site. These include the Service Facility which is approximately 26,199 square feet as well as a Learning Center which is approximately 2,340 square feet. The land area of the site is approximately 49.89 acres (paras 7-8 of ASF). A site plan of the property is found at Tab 3 of the ASF; ii. the Learning Centre is exempt from taxation as is 10 acres of land as well as a portion of the carpentry shop on the basis that it is used for education purposes.

The details of the assessment are described in para 10 of the ASF; iii. the Service Facility building includes the following: • conference rooms and areas which are used by school teams, school staff, and for educational training sessions as well as administration purposes, all as detailed in para 18 of ASF; • a storage area for facility plans and manuals including plans, operations manuals, architectural drawings, all as described in para 20 of ASF; • an area for the storage of staging equipment used in student events, concerts and theatre which is distributed from the property to schools as needed and reflects the centralization of storage of staging and theatre-related equipment, all as detailed in paras 21-23 of ASF;

• w orkshops for various trades including heating, ventilating and air conditioning, plumbing, which also houses new and used parts and materials, all as detailed at paras 26-30 of ASF; • workshops for roofing and electrical trades, all as detailed in paras 31-35 of ASF; • a carpentry shop with the staff spending equal time within the shop and within schools performing required maintenance work, all as described in paras 36-41 of ASF; • maintenance facility and garage for all required repair work on the fleet of school buses of SOSD which includes roughly 50-60 buses in size, and is used to transport students to and from schools, and to and from field trips.

The buses are parked on a lot located adjacent to and north of the Service Facility building, all as detailed in paras 42-50 of ASF; • the Learning Centre is described at paras 51-58 of ASF and it is used as a classroom as are the surrounding lands which contain a significant Indigenous component; • also located on the property is a greenhouse described at paras 61-65 of ASF.

It has not yet been assessed and the greenhouse is used in part for educational purposes as described at para 64 of ASF. d) 1395 Spruce i. the building is a 20,000 square foot building located on 32,336 square feet of land (paras 11-12 of ASF); ii. a floor plan of the building is found at Tab 10 of ASF; iii. it is immediately adjacent to and is connected to 1397 Spruce. The Spruce properties house the Building Department which addresses all infrastructure needs of WSD and provide safe, secure and comfortable facilities for the students and staff.

Tab 11 of the ASF describes the nature of the Building Department, its structure, and the employees who make up the group; iv. the employees who operate out of 1395 Spruce include engineering, maintenance and operations, technical support, permit clerks, stores and clerical support. At para 27 of the ASF, the various rooms within the building, and their uses, are detailed including floor plans which identify the location of each of the rooms. Photographs are provided at Tabs 12-25 of ASF.

These areas and their uses include areas for printing, a storage vault, a boardroom, a permits area, and office areas. e) 1397 Spruce i.

The building is a 17,520 square foot building located on 40,315 square feet of land (paras 11-12 of ASF); ii. a floor plan of the building is found commencing at Tab 10 of ASF; iii. located within the building are generally the operations and maintenance side of the Building Department, including various trades such as painting, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, sheet-metal, welding, and equipment repair; iv. the property is located immediately adjacent to and is connected to 1395 Spruce; v. the employees who operate out of 1397 Spruce include painters, carpenters, electricians, sheet-metal workers, welders, and small engine repair personnel.

At para 26 of the ASF, the various rooms within the building, and their uses, are detailed including floor plans which identify the location of each of the rooms, and provide photographs at Tabs 12-23 of the ASF. [ 9 ] The affidavits filed on behalf of the applicants detail the fact that the school division owns and maintains a fleet of school buses which are used to transport students as required under The Public Schools Act , C.C.S.M. c. P250 (the “ PS Act ”). The school buses are also used for the purpose of transporting students to participate in or attend extracurricular activities and field trips.

The affidavits provide details of the number of students being transported. [ 10 ] The affidavits also outline the administrative functions performed on behalf of the WSD and the locations of those functions. No exemption from property tax has been sought by the applicants or has been sought in respect of the Wall Street Property where the WSD administration offices are located. A limited exemption was sought in connection with the Notre Dame Property as described in the affidavit. [ 11 ] In the SOSD, administrative offices are located at 830 Powers Street, Winnipeg.

The administrative functions are described in the affidavit material and no exemption from property tax has been sought in respect of the Powers Street Property. [ 12 ] The LRSD administrative offices are located at 900 St. Mary’s Road in Winnipeg. The administrative functions are described in the Affidavit of Jamie Rudnicki sworn April 29, 2022. [ 13 ] No exemption from property tax has been sought in respect of the administrative property at 900 St. Mary’s Road to the extent that it is occupied by the senior management level of the school division. Other portions of 900 St.

Mary’s Road are utilized in the day- to-day operations of the school division and as a result, the applicants claim an exemption for those portions of that building. [ 14 ] The Affidavit of Brian Dupuis, who is the Area Coordinator of the Multifamily Division of Assessment and Taxation Department of the City of Winnipeg, outlines his duties and responsibilities and provides details as to the process of assessment/exemption determination pursuant to the MA Act . Mr. Dupuis describes the process for determining whether a building is a school and is entitled to the exemption under s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . [ 15 ] Mr. Dupuis states at paras 10-13 of his affidavit as follows:

10. In conducting a s. 22(1)(

d) analysis, I consider whether: • there is a school located on a school site which: i. demonstrates that it is functional and used as a place where students will attend; and ii. is used to impart education; and • there are any buildings on that school site that are i. used by or for the needs of that particular school (such as, for example, portable class rooms, field houses, equipment storagebuildings, gymnasiums or auditoriums), 11. If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then I determine that those properties will be exempted under and as per MAA 22(1)(

d) and applicable

definitions. 12. If the answer to either of these questions is “no”, then my next consideration is that of “what function does the building serve?”. 13. In my consideration of these factors, I distinguish between whether a particular school, as defined in the PSA and/or the EAA isbeing served by that building, or whether it is serving a school division generally.

Under the legislation which, in my capacity as anassessor, I am required to understand and employ in the course of my duties, a “school” is distinguished as being a separate entity from a“school division”. [emphasis in original] [16] For each of the five properties, Mr. Dupuis states that the activities carried on at those premises: • serve an administrative function of the school division, and not a specific school; and • are not used to impart education to students other than as identified. As a result, he maintains that those properties are not exempt under s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act. Respecting the Monterey property, heexpresses the view that the activities are administrative in nature and for the needs of the school division and that “it was not required asor a place that imparted education.” Mr. Dupuis however acknowledges that the Quest Program takes place in a single classroom andtherefore accepts that the space used for that single classroom is exempt from taxation. He views the remaining space at the Montereyproperty as serving administrative functions and not exempt pursuant to s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act. Principles of Statutory

Interpretation [17] There is no dispute regarding the governing principles of statutory

interpretation. The leading authority continues to be Rizzo &Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), (SCC), 1998 SCC 837, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 (“Rizzo”) at para 21 (a recent example of theSupreme Court of Canada’s reliance on the Rizzo approach to statutory

interpretation is found in MediaQMI Inc. v. Kamel, 2021 SCC23 (“MediaQMI”). The modern approach to statutory

interpretation is that “the words of

an Act are to be read in their entire context, intheir grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.” [18] Another important principle is found in The

Interpretation Act, C.C.S.M. c. I80, which states that legislation be interpretedliberally having regard to its purpose.

Section 6 of The

Interpretation Act reads: Rule of liberal

interpretation 6 Every Act and regulation must be interpreted as being remedial and must be given the fair, large and liberal

interpretation that bestensures the attainment of its objects.

[19] This court and the Manitoba Court of Appeal have interpreted s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act, in the context of a school parking lot, ashort distance away from the school, separated by an apartment building not owned by the WSD. (See Winnipeg School Division v.Winnipeg (Assessor), 2013 MBQB 91, 292 Man. R. (2d) 28 (“Winnipeg School Division”) aff’d 2014 MBCA 50, 306 Man. R. (2d) 60(“Winnipeg School Division Appeal”). [20] The Court of Appeal agreed with Greenberg J. that taxing statutes, like other statutes, should be interpreted using the modernapproach. Tax exemptions should not be strictly construed. This principle was made clear in Québec (Communauté urbaine) v.

Corp.Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, (SCC), 1994 SCC 58, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3, in which the Supreme Court held: 23 In light of the foregoing, I should like to stress that it is no longer possible to apply automatically the rule that any tax exemptionshould be strictly construed. It is not incorrect to say that when the legislature makes a general rule and lists certain exceptions, the lattermust be regarded as exhaustive and so strictly construed. That does not mean, however, that this rule should be transposed to tax mattersso as to make an absolute parallel between the concepts of exemption and exception.

With respect, adhering to the principle that taxationis clearly the rule and exemption the exception no longer corresponds to the reality of present-day tax law. Such a way of looking atthings was undoubtedly tenable at a time when the purpose of tax legislation was limited to raising funds to cover government expenses.In our time it has been recognized that such legislation serves other purposes and functions as a tool of economic and social policy. Bysubmitting tax legislation to a teleological

interpretation it can be seen that there is nothing to prevent a general policy of raising fundsfrom being subject to a secondary policy of exempting social works. Both are legitimate purposes which equally embody the legislativeintent and it is thus hard to see why one should take precedence over the other. [21] The Winnipeg School Division case addressed the use of legislative purpose in statutory

interpretation in the context ofmunicipal assessment legislation quoting from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Ottawa Salus Corp. v. Municipal PropertyAssessment Corp., (ON CA), 2004 ONCA 14620, 182 O.A.C. 172: 25 The general purpose of the Assessment Act is obvious. It is expressed in s. 3(1) of the Act: "All real property in Ontario is liable toassessment and taxation . . .". In Canadian Mental Health Ass'n v. Ontario Property Assessment Corp., [2002] O.J.

No. 2199 (QL), 31M.P.L.R. (3d) 79 (S.C.J.) at para. 42, Kozak J. described the purpose of s. 3(1) as follows: "to impose upon all real property in Ontario ageneral obligation to pay a property tax so that the government can meet its expenditures". 26 However, this purpose is not an absolute one. Section 3(1) expressly provides that the general purpose is "subject to the followingexemptions from taxation". Twenty-nine exemptions follow, including exemptions for churches, public education institutions, publichospitals, houses of refuge, charitable institutions, small theatres and large non-profit theatres.

Many of the organizations listed in theexemption paragraphs perform activities which are of great benefit to either discrete groups of disadvantaged persons or to society as awhole. Exemption from property tax allows these organizations to spend more of their limited resources on those activities.

The clearimplication of these exemptions is that while there is a substantial public interest in the generation of revenue through the taxation of realproperty, in the context of the real property covered by these exemptions, that public interest is outweighed by the public interest ingiving relief from property taxation to certain organizations. [22] The Manitoba Court of Appeal addressed the principles of

interpretation of an exemption in the MA Act in South WestmanRegional Health Authority Inc. v. Souris (Town), 2002 MBCA 67, 163 Man. R. (2d) 294. Steel J.A. concurring with the majority notedas follows: 20 Both parties agreed that the Supreme Court of Canada in Québec (Communauté Urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3, set out the principles that should guide a court when interpreting tax legislation. Theseprinciples are summarized in that case as follows, at p. 20: - The

interpretation of tax legislation should follow the ordinary rules of

interpretation; - A legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal

interpretation depending on the purpose underlying it, and that purpose mustbe identified in light of the context of the statute, its objective and the legislative intent: this is the teleological approach; - The teleological approach will favour the taxpayer or the tax department depending solely on the legislative provision in question, andnot on the existence of predetermined presumptions; - Substance should be given precedence over form to the extent that this is consistent with the wording and objective of the statute;

- Only a reasonable doubt, not resolved by the ordinary rules of

interpretation, will be settled by recourse to the residual presumption infavour of the taxpayer. 21 Although the primary purpose of a taxing statute is to raise revenues, such legislation also "serves other purposes and functions asa tool of economic and social policy" (Bon-Secours, at p. 18). At first blush, it would seem sensible that if administrative services wereexempt from municipal taxation when attached to a hospital, then those services should remain tax-free even though they have beenconsolidated in a central location for purposes of a more cost effective and efficient operation.

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canadain Buanderie Centrale de Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City); Conseil de la Santé et des Services Sociaux de la Région de MontréalMétropolitain v. Montreal (City), (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 29 at 49: …. … [I]t would go against common sense for the legislature to have intended to penalize public establishments for their decision tocombine into a more efficient and less costly form of organization. [23]

Section 7 of The

Interpretation Act provides that both linguistic versions of

an Act are equally authoritative. The parties agreethat the English version of s. 22(1)(

d) says that it applies to real property “used for a public school” and the translation of the Frenchversion refers to real property “used for the needs of a public school”. The French version includes the word “besoins” which translatedto English means “needs”. [24] The parties all referenced the Court of Appeal’s review of the French and English versions of s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act in theWinnipeg School Division Appeal in which the court stated: 26 The English version indicates that real property is tax exempt where it is "used for a public school" within the meaning of the PSA.The French version indicates that real property is tax-exempt where it is "used for the needs of a public school" within the meaning ofthe PSA.

Reading the two versions together in a harmonious manner demonstrates that real property used for the operation of a publicschool is tax exempt to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares. [25] The parties agree that the guiding principles to be followed in interpreting bilingual legislation is set out in R. v. S.A.C., 2008SCC 47, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 675 (“S.A.C.”) as follows: 14 The

interpretation of bilingual statutes begins with a search for the shared meaning of the English and French versions. This Courthas on a number of occasions discussed the appropriate approach for determining the shared meaning of English and French legislativeprovisions: see, e.g., R. v. Daoust, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217, 2004 SCC 6; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, 2002SCC 62.

In those cases, the Court adopted a two-step approach. 15 The first step is to determine whether there is discordance between the English and French versions of the provision and, if so,whether a shared meaning can be found. Where a provision may have different meanings, the court has to determine what kind ofdiscrepancy is involved. There are three possibilities. First, the English and French versions may be irreconcilable. In such cases, it willbe impossible to find a shared meaning and the ordinary rules of

interpretation will accordingly apply: Daoust, at para. 27; P.-A. Côté,The

Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd ed. 2000), at p. 327. Second, one version may be ambiguous while the other is plainand unequivocal. The shared meaning will then be that of the version that is plain and unambiguous: Daoust, at para. 28; Côté, at p. 327.Third, one version may have a broader meaning than the other.

According to LeBel J. in Schreiber, at para. 56, "where one of the twoversions is broader [page685] than the other, the common meaning would favour the more restricted or limited meaning". 16 At the second step, it must be determined whether the shared meaning is consistent with Parliament's intent: Daoust, at para. 30. Inthe penal context, courts must also ensure that any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the accused whose liberty is at stake (Marcotte v.Deputy Attorney General for Canada, (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108). Analysis and Decision [26] This appeal requires the court to interpret s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act and apply the principles outlined above. The Supreme Courtof Canada has made it clear that statutory

interpretation entails discerning legislative intent by examining statutory context in itsgrammatical and ordinary sense, in harmony with the statutes scheme and objects. (See MediaQMI Inc. at para 37)

[ 27 ] This principle is reflected in s. 6 of The

Interpretation Act which provides that every Act must be interpreted as being remedial and must be given “the fair large and liberal

interpretation that best ensures the attainment of its objects.” [ 28 ] Because the MA Act exemption in question states that the exemption applies where the real property is used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act , the starting point for analysis is the scheme and objects of both the MA Act and the PS Act . As will be explained, the language used requires a review of the PS Act as a whole to determine what a public school is within the meaning of that legislation. [ 29 ] Rather than list all relevant sections of both of these Acts which assist in discerning the legislative intent within the reasons for decision, I have attached hereto as

Schedule “A” to my reasons the relevant provisions of the MA Act and the PS Act . As required, I will reference certain provisions from

Schedule “A”. [ 30 ] The exemption in s. 22(1)(

d) must be contrasted with other exemptions in s. 22(1) which tie the exempt use or ownership of real property to a specific definition contained in other legislation. For example, the exemptions found at s. 22(1)(b.1), (b.3) and (d.1). The public schools exemption does not incorporate by reference the specific definition of public school in the PS Act . [ 31 ] The primary purpose or object of the MA Act is to raise revenues based on the assessment of real property. It is clear that the MA Act provides exemptions from taxation based on the use of the real property.

The MA Act provides many exemptions for certain real property where the uses are recognized as having a social purpose or are in the public interest. Use of real property for a public school is one of those social purposes. [ 32 ] In this case, the exemption applies as long as the real property is used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act to a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares (10 acres). At first blush, and consistent with the

interpretation described in the Affidavit of Brian Dupuis, it is understandable that assessors focussed on buildings that were constructed as schools or a place where students attend and where education is imparted. [ 33 ] However, the exemption for real property under s. 22(1)(

d) does not state that the exemption applies to real property used “as” a public school or for the imparting of instruction or education. It states that the exemption applies to real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act . The operative word is “for”. [ 34 ] In Seven Oaks General Hospital v. Manitoba (City Assessor for the City of Winnipeg) , 2001 MBQB 90 , 155 Man. R. (2d) 25 (“ SOGH ”), this court had to determine whether certain improvements at a hospital referred to as the Wellness Institute were exempt from municipal taxes pursuant to s. 22(1) (

e) of the MA Act . The court allowed the application and found as follows: 36 The MAA does not stipulate that the building must be used exclusively for the provision of "hospital services" as defined in HSIA in order to obtain the exemption. I cannot read in that language into that Act. 37 The Assessor asks to interpret the MAA to limit hospital to a place where only defined medical services are provided. This would lead to results inconsistent with the general objectives of the MAA. This is not an occasion for the Court to read into the MAA, language that would effectively amend the MAA.

That task is for the legislature should it decide to do so. [ 35 ] I agree with the applicant similar to the findings in the SOGH case; the exemption pursuant to s. 22(1)(

d) does not limit the exemption to real property used for the imparting of instruction or education in public schools. [ 36 ] A review of the scheme and objects of the PS Act show that the objectives of the public school system include the following:

a) A strong public school system (preamble of the PS Act );

b) To serve the best educational interests of students (preamble of the PS Act );

c) Schools take into account the diverse needs and interests of the people of Manitoba (preamble PS Act );

d) Provide a safe and caring school environment (s. 41(1)(b.1) of the PS Act );

e) Identify pupils who are disengaged or at risk of becoming disengaged from school programming ( s. 41(1) (k.1) of the PS Act );

f) Build, repair, furnish and keep in order school buildings ( s. 41(1) (72.2) of the PS Act );

g) Transport students to and from their homes, and to and from school, between schools and transport to and from extracurricular activities ( s. 41(5) and 43(1) of the PS Act ); and

h) Provide for maintenance and safe use of buses (s. 41(1)(

d) of the PS Act ). [ 37 ] As pointed out by the respondents, I agree that it is important to distinguish between school divisions, school boards and schools for the purpose of assessing which real property is exempt under the MA Act . The various school divisions advancing the applications have responsibility of providing public school education and the divisions own the real property within their division. The WSD has

responsibility for approximately 79 schools; the LRSD has responsibility for approximately 40 schools; and SOSD has responsibility for approximately 29 schools. [ 38 ] In examining the relevant provisions of the PS Act , there are

definitions that assist in the analysis of the meaning of the exemption in s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act .

They include: • "school" means a public school; • "public school" means an institution for educational purposes established and maintained under this Act or The Education Administration Act ; • "school site" means, subject to the regulations, the area of land required set aside or used by a school division or a school district for the school building, teachers' residence, students' residence, offices, or playground, or any one or more of them and includes any area of land required set aside or used for parking purposes; • "school building" includes the buildings required or used in a school division or school district for the imparting of instruction or for offices or other public school purposes; but does not include a building, or a part thereof, constructed, designed, or used solely or chiefly for administrative functions of the school division or school district other than those exercised by principals and teachers. [ 39 ] In my view, these

definitions assist in understanding the intent of the legislature regarding the exemption in question. There is no dispute that an exemption applies to a school building as defined in the PS Act . A school building does not include a building, or a part thereof constructed, designed or used solely or chiefly for administrative functions of the school division or school district other than those exercised by principals and teachers.

Therefore, the clear intent of the legislature is that buildings used solely or chiefly for administrative functions of the school division are not exempt from taxation under the MA Act . However, buildings or parts thereof used by principals and teachers are, pursuant to the definition of a school building, intended to be included in the exemption under s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . [ 40 ] The respondents submit and I agree that the s. 22(1)(

d) exemption does not apply exclusively to real property used for a public school, but applies to independent (private) schools as well. The respondents submit that had the legislature intended to enact an exemption linked to real property owned by a school division, then clearly the legislature would have said so. The respondents submit that the underlying character and object of s. 22(1)(

d) is rooted in the fact that the real property is used for the public and/or societal purpose of learning. They submit that the purpose of “communal elementary and secondary education is the object of the exemption.” [ 41 ] Applying the principles and the modern approach to statutory

interpretation, the words of s. 22(1)(d), specifically real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act , must be read in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of the legislature. A review of the provisions of the MA Act and the PS Act as well as The Education Administration Act , C.C.S.M. c. E10 , which also defines public school and independent school, satisfy me that a public school and an independent school provide far more than a building used for imparting education.

The reference to a public school within the meaning of the PS Act is broader than a reference to a public school building. Had the legislature intended to limit the exemption to the school building itself, it could have stated that specifically. Instead the legislation exempts real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act .

In my view, public schools provide programs and services which ensure the maintenance of a safe and caring school environment and provide for the mental, physical and emotional well-being of students in the province. [ 42 ] I agree with the applicant’s submission that the exemption was not intended to be limited to a physical building operating as a school. The fair, large and liberal

interpretation that best ensures the attainment of the objects of both the MA Act and the PS Act is that the exemption was intended to apply to all operations or activities used for a public school which would include the resources provided, bus service facilities used to transport students to and from home, from school to school and to and from extracurricular activities, maintenance buildings used specifically for a public school and other hybrid buildings used for a public school. [ 43 ] The public schools of today:

a) Bus students as required pursuant to the PS Act , to and from home, from school to school and to and from extracurricular activities;

b) Use computers within the public schools and classrooms of the public schools;

c) Provide support for the well-being of students from a mental, emotional and physical perspective;

d) Provide access to appropriate clinical supports including psychologist, social workers, speech language pathologists, reading support, guidance counsellors and a variety of other support systems;

e) Provide support to its teachers through ongoing professional development and access to resources to enhance the teaching capability of teachers; and

f) Must have buildings to maintain the infrastructure used for a public school. [ 44 ] When the wording of the exemption in s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act is read in its grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme and objects of the MA Act and PS Act , I disagree with the submission of the respondents that the words of the exemption must be interpreted to require that the real property be used for imparting education or instruction or used “as” a public school. The

wording of the exemption is clear and unambiguous. It applies when the real property is used for a public school. In my view, applying the modern approach to statutory

interpretation, all buildings referenced in this appeal are entitled to the requested exemption other than as specifically noted below. Statutory History of the Public School’s Exemption and the Walter Weir Report [ 45 ] The respondents made extensive submissions regarding the legislative history of the public school’s exemption in the MA Act and argued it was relevant to assess the meaning of the exemption in the current legislation.

I agree, as did the court in the Winnipeg School Division case, that external aides can be used to interpret a statute. (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes , Fifth Edition, LexisNexis Canada Inc. 2008, at pp 608–618) [ 46 ] Greenberg J. cited a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada in Castillo v. Castillo , 2005 SCC 83 , [2005] 3 S.C.R. 870 (“ Castillo ”) as authority for that proposition: 23 The appellant contends that where the plain language of a legislative provision is clear and unambiguous, extrinsic evidence of legislative intent should not be admissible.

I do not find the ordinary meaning of s. 12 to be clear and unambiguous. I would also question whether statutory

interpretation should ever proceed solely on the basis of the plain language of the legislation, without consideration of the entire context, including the purpose and the scheme of the Act . In approving of Professor Driedger's approach to statutory

interpretation, Iacobucci J. recognized that "statutory

interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone" ( Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes , at para. 21 ; see also R. Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th ed. 2002), at pp. 9-18). It is now well accepted that legislative history, Parliamentary debates and similar material may be quite properly considered as long as they are relevant and reliable and not assigned undue weight: Reference re Firearms Act (Can.) , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783 , 2000 SCC 31 , at para. 17 . [emphasis added] [ 47 ] The province provided the history of the public school’s exemption dating back to 1873.

Most of the exemptions referred specifically to a public school including the residence for the teachers and contiguous land used in connection with the school to the extent of four acres. By 1970, the exemption had evolved to include private (currently called independent) schools. In 1988, the MA Act statute was reenacted in bilingual form. The current version of the MA Act was enacted in 1990.

According to references made in Hansard, the current MA Act was to update the legislation in light of numerous recommendations made in a commission report entitled A Fair Way to Share: Report of the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee , March 1982, which was chaired by Walter Weir (the “Weir Report”).

The Weir Report was completed in 1982 and while the 1990 amendments to the MA Act incorporated some of the recommendations, it is clear that the legislature chose not to implement all recommendations made in the Weir Report. [ 48 ] In general, the 1990 enactment removed the reference to contiguous land, placing it in a free-standing

section and increased the maximum exemption to 4.047 hectares. [ 49 ] The respondents made extensive reference to the Weir Report and the recommendations made to support their

interpretation of the public school exemption. Specifically regarding the exemption relating to public and private schools, the Weir Report made the following recommendations and gave its explanations (at pp 140-43): E. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Public and Private Schools RECOMMENDATION : IV-E-1 Every public school and every private school, meeting the requirements of the School Attendance Act, should be exempt from assessment for municipal and school taxation.

Any residence for pupils that is owned and operated by such schools and which is situated on land contiguous to the school should also be exempt from assessment. This exemption should also apply to any land owned by the school division, school board or private school on which such schools are located. The exemption should also include any additional land to the extent of four contiguous acres or such land area as is approved by the Minister of Education for school purposes.

All public schools and all private schools which meet the requirements of the School Attendance Act are now exempt from assessment for municipal and school purposes. The Committee believes that this exemption should continue . Public and private schools are part of the education system. They would merely be transferring funds from one area of the education system's budget to another area if assessed for school tax purposes. If public and private schools were assessed for municipal

tax purposes, the increased municipal revenue would result in decreased municipal taxes for the residents in the municipality where such schools are located. The school divisions would have to increase their school tax requirements to pay their municipal taxes. Private schools would have to increase their fees. If public and private schools were assessed for municipal tax purposes, the increased municipal revenue would result in decreased municipal taxes for the residents in the municipality where such schools are located.

The school divisions would have to increase their school tax requirements to pay their municipal taxes. Private schools would have to increase their fees . The Committee believes that the loss in municipal and school tax revenue now experienced by a community is offset by the location of schools inside that community. The provision of schools in a community attracts and holds residents. Business people are attracted to a community where schools are located. They service the parents, teachers and students associated with such schools.

The municipality benefits from the increased revenue in municipal taxes generated by this greater sized populace. The convenience to residents and the municipal revenue to be collected from additional residents and businesses offsets any loss in taxes from public and private schools. Again the reader's attention is drawn to the Committee's remarks concerning the possible future assessment and taxation of all land for municipal purposes.

Private School Exemption RECOMMENDATION : IV-E-2 One or more rooms in a building which are being used as a private school and which meet the requirements of the School Attendance Act should continue to be exempt from assessment for municipal and school tax purposes. There are many instances in which part of a building, that is, one or more rooms, is being used for private school purposes. As a private school, such facilities are exempt from assessment for municipal and school tax purposes.

The Committee agrees with this exemption as it is in line with its general principle that a property should be assessed according to its use and not its ownership. The space inside a structure, which is used as a private school, should be assessed according to such use, regardless of the use to which the rest of the structure is being put and regardless of the ownership of the structure. [ ... ] School Division Offices and Bus Garages RECOMMENDATION : IV-E-4 School division and school board offices and bus garages together with the land on which they sit should be subject to assessment for municipal taxation.

If such land is however, part of the exempt land area contiguous to a school building, it should continue to be exempt. The Committee believes that all school division and school board offices should be assessed and taxed. The Committee also believes that school bus garages should be assessed and taxed . School division and school board offices, which are situated on the same land as school buildings or on land contiguous to the school building to an extent of four acres, are exempt from assessment for taxation. Bus garages located on such land are also exempt from assessment.

School division and school board offices, as well as bus garages located on land elsewhere in a municipality, are subject to assessment for municipal taxes.

The Committee feels that these offices and bus garages, no matter where they are located, do not add to the convenience associated with the location of a school building in the municipality. Such offices and garages are not necessarily part of the services provided to residents in a municipality. The Committee sees no reason to exempt such facilities from assessment for municipal purposes . The land on which school division and school board offices sit. as well as the land on which bus garages are located. should continue to be exempt from assessment if the land is contiguous to the school buildings .

The land on which such facilities sit should not exceed four acres. [emphasis added] [ 50 ] The Weir Report was referenced at the time the new legislation was introduced in the legislature in 1989. When introducing the new legislation, the Honourable Jack Penner, Minister of Rural Development, made the following statements:

a) Hansard Debates and Proceedings of Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, November 8, 1989 (at pp 2652–2653): Assessment reform, Mr. Speaker, began in 1979 with the establishment of the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee, otherwise known as the Weir Committee. In 1982 the Weir Committee tabled its report with some 160 recommendations in the Manitoba Legislature.

The Bill I present to the Legislature is structured around four key recommendations of the Weir Report, that is moving to market value assessment and moving to frequent assessments, minimizing exemptions and standardizing the assessment process across the province. The goal of the Legislature is simple, to bring fairness and equity to the valuing of property for the purpose of taxation. . . . Although assessment itself is a reasonably neutral exercise of valuing property, its sole purpose is to provide the basis upon which real property tax is allocated.

The Municipal Assessment Act , therefore, also contains direction to the assessor on which properties should be considered as liable to taxes, and which ones should be coded as exempt.

b) Minister Penner went on to state at p. 2654: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have recognized other exemptions. Land holdings associated with schools and hospitals are quite different today than they were when the original Act was created.

We have therefore increased the land exemption associated with these buildings to more realistically reflect the size of today's schools and hospitals, and the new provision directs a flat 10-acre exemption be provided for all institutions. [emphasis added] [ 51 ] The respondents referenced statements made by Minister Penner on January 9, 1990 during committee stage debate in which the Minister stated: Similarly, as far the request that was made by the MAST organization to organization to exempt all properties owned by school divisions, it is not our intention to cause further exemptions, through this assessment legislation, of those properties that are now currently not exempt.

In other words, we would propose by this legislation that the status quo there be maintained except for the expansion of the exemptions to school properties as indicated in the Bill. [ 52 ] It would appear that Minister Penner was responding to a request made by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees that all school division property be exempt from taxation. It is clear that it was not the intention of legislature to grant an exemption relating to all properties owned by school divisions.

The reference to maintaining the “status quo” is difficult to interpret since the proposed legislation changed the previous wording of the exemption relating to schools to the version that was passed in 1990, which, as I have

already stated, expanded the exemption to all real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act . As well, the legislation expanded the surface area maximum exemption from 4 acres to 10 acres. The new exemption provision also removed the reference to contiguous land and placed it in s. 24 of the MA Act . [ 53 ] I accept that the legislative history and legislative debates provide some assistance in assessing the plain language of the legislation. However, as pointed out in Castillo , the legislative history and debates should not be assigned undo weight. [ 54 ] In my view, the intent of the legislature can be summarized as follows:

a) The exemption provisions were revised to provide direction to assessors on which real property should be considered as liable to taxes and which ones should be coded as exempt;

b) Land holdings associated with schools are quite different today than they were when the original MA Act was created and the land exemption associated with the schools was increased to a 10 acre exemption;

c) The new exemption provision removed the reference to contiguous land and placed it in a free-standing

section ( s. 24 of the MA Act ); and

d) An exemption for all school division property was not accepted. It is difficult to interpret what Minister Penner meant when he said the “status quo there be maintained except for the expansion of the exemption to school properties as indicated in the Bill”.

In my view, the public school exemption was expanded, but it was not expanded to include all school division property and specifically school division property used for administrative functions. [ 55 ] The respondents submit that when the recommendations were made in the Weir Report prior to the MA Act being reenacted in bilingual form, centralized schooling-related ancillary facilities such as administration offices and bus garages were generally seen by assessors as not included within the scope of the public school exemption.

The Weir Report explained that school division and school board offices as well as land on which bus garages are located should continue to be exempt from assessment if the land is contiguous to the school buildings and within the school’s surface area cap. [ 56 ] The difficulty with selecting portions of the Weir Report as an aid in interpreting the provisions of the MA Act is that not all of the recommendations were accepted and implemented when the MA Act was passed in 1990.

The Weir Report recommended wording of the public and private school exemption was not used and neither were the recommendations regarding contiguous land and the maximum exemption. Accordingly, while I considered the statements made in the Weir Report and the extracts from Hansard, I am cautious about giving undue weight to the recommendations made in the Weir Report and the statements made by the Minister at the time to interpret the legislative intent of s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . Bilingual Legislation [ 57 ] As noted above, s. 7 of The

Interpretation Act makes it clear that both the English and French versions of the MA Act are “equally authoritative”. The Supreme Court of Canada in S.A.C. set out the guiding principles to be utilized respecting the

interpretation of bilingual statues. The

interpretation begins with a search for a shared meeting of the English and French versions. [ 58 ] The English version states that real property “used for a public school”. The French translation to English states real property “used for the needs of a public school”. The respondents submit that there is a discordance between the English and French versions of the provision and it is impossible to find a shared meaning. They submit that since the French version has a broader meaning than the English version, the common meaning would favour the more restricted or limited meaning.

In this case, they submit that the English version applies and the exemption is limited to a school where education is imparted. [ 59 ] I disagree with the submission of the respondents that there is a discordance between the English and French versions of the exemption or that the exemption is limited to a school where learning or education is imparted. While it is arguable that the French meaning of “used for needs of a public school” may have a broader meaning that the English version, the opposite could be argued.

The intent is clear from the words read harmoniously with the scheme and objects of the two Acts that as long as the real property is used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act , then it is exempt. [ 60 ] The Manitoba Court of Appeal in the Winnipeg School Division Appeal case made comments about the English version and French version of the school’s exemption as follows: 24 Finally, while it was not argued in this appeal, the

interpretation of ss. 22(1)(

d) and 24 of the MAA endorsed in these reasons is supported by a comparison of the French and English versions. 25 The French and English versions of section 22(1)(

d) of the MAA state:

Real property partial exemptions 22(1) Subject to sections 25 and 26, real property is exempt from taxation levied by a municipality, other than for local improvements, where the real property Exemptions partielles 22(1)

Sous réserve des articles 25 et 26, les biens réels sont exempts de la taxe municipale à l’exception de la taxe pour les travaux d’améliorations locales, dans les cas suivants : (

d) is used for a public school within the meaning of The Public Schools Act or a private school within the meaning of The Education Administration Act , to a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares;

d) ils sont utilisés pour les besoins d’une école publique au sens de la

Loi sur les écoles publiques ou d’une école privée au sens de la

Loi sur l’administration scolaire , la superficie maximale exemptée étant de 4,047 hectares; 26 The English version indicates that real property is tax exempt where it is "used for a public school" within the meaning of the PSA. The French version indicates that real property is tax-exempt where it is "used for the needs of a public school" within the meaning of the PSA .

Reading the two versions together in a harmonious manner demonstrates that real property used for the operation of a public school is tax exempt to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares. [ 61 ] I agree that reading the French and English versions together in a harmonious manner demonstrates that real property used for the operation of a public school is tax exempt to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares.

The respondents encouraged the court to find that the comments made by the Court of Appeal were obiter and that the Court of Appeal did not turn its mind to the guiding principles in the S.A.C. case. [ 62 ] While the Court of Appeal did not reference the S.A.C. case, in my view, the Court of Appeal did not find that the two versions were irreconcilable.

It found that the two versions had a shared meaning that were consistent and harmonious. [ 63 ] The Court of Appeal went on to state as follows: 28 As the language of both versions clearly suggests, s. 24 is not a provision which limits the application of s. 22(1), but is a provision which is meant to extend the exemption to include contiguous land (in English), or is a provision indicating that the exemption equally embraces contiguous land (in French).

Read in conjunction with s. 22(1)(d), the intent of s. 24 is to extend the exemption to include contiguous land that is not "used for a public school" or is not "used for the needs of a public school" as discussed in the PSA , as those uses are already exempt pursuant to s. 22(1)(d). So, land used for the school building, teachers' and students' residences, playgrounds and parking lots, would all be land that is "used for a public school" or "used for the needs of a public school" pursuant to the PSA .

Section 24 exempts additional land abutting or contiguous to the already- exempt real property which, although is not currently being used for the "needs" of the school, may be held for other reasons, as I have already discussed. [emphasis added] [ 64 ] To conclude on this issue, I agree that there is no discordance between the English and French versions and that properly interpreted, each version permits the exemptions requested by the applicant other than as noted below. [ 65 ] This

interpretation is consistent with the definition of “school building” in the PS Act , which uses the word “includes” buildings required or used in a school division or school district for the imparting of education or for offices or other public school purposes. As stated earlier, I have no hesitation in concluding that the operation of a public school requires the support of other buildings and that the language of s. 22(1)(

d) does not limit the exemption to buildings used for the purposes of imparting education or instruction. Specific Properties under Appeal Monterey property [ 66 ] This property is owned and operated by the LRSD and was formerly a school which is now being used for numerous purposes as outlined above. There are four appeals outstanding respecting the exemption issue covering different assessment years. [ 67 ] The Monterey property houses a variety of programs which clearly support the operation of a public school within the school division, including:

a) The CSU containing an occupational therapy group, a speech and language pathology working group, a psychology working group, a social work group, a physiotherapy group, and a child and youth care support group and a CSU library;

b) The Quest Program, which provides a one-room schooling alternative for students who have missed significant portions of learning, either due to attendance or learning challenges;

c) ISP which is designed to accommodate and coordinate international students who arrive in Manitoba and enter the public school system. The staff at the Monterey property perform numerous functions to coordinate many activities carried on by the ISP;

d) The Facilities Department, which is a centralized resource responsible for all construction and maintenance operations in the LRSD;

e) Meeting rooms used for meetings of the ISP; and

f) A gymnasium used for storage. [ 68 ] In my view, all of the functions being performed at the Monterey property are operations used for a public school, including the Quest Program which the respondents acknowledge ought to be exempt under s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . In my view, the functions carried on at the Monterey property are essential to the operation of a public school. The portion of the Monterey property used by the CSU is one example of functions provided to ensure the mental, physical and emotional well-being of students at a public school. There is no question that the space used by the CSU is used for a public school or many public schools and therefore is exempt under s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act , subject to the 4.047 hectare maximum exemption. [ 69 ] Similarly, the portion of the Monterey property which houses the staff and coordinators of the ISP as well as meeting rooms are “used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act ”. While some of the functions performed by the ISP are administrative in nature, the services are required to coordinate international students who enter Manitoba to permit them to enter the public school system. The services performed are used for a public school. This

interpretation is also consistent with the

definitions of “school site” and “school building” as set out above. The Monterey property is not a building that is used solely or chiefly for administrative functions of the school division or school district. The functions are primarily functions required for the operation of a public school. [ 70 ] The Monterey and Wellington properties house professionals that work within these buildings and are used by public schools. The evidence establishes that students attend at the Monterey and Wellington property for developing treatment plans and counselling programs.

The programs are delivered to students by the teaching faculty within the schools and are also delivered from the Monterey and Wellington properties.

I agree that the CSU is essential to the maintenance of the safe and caring school environment and provides for the mental, physical and emotional well-being of students. [ 71 ] Achieving the objectives of the PS Act requires supports from numerous buildings including resources such as the CSU and ISP, as well as maintenance buildings and bus service facilities. [ 72 ] The Facilities Department at the Monterey property is a resource department for maintenance and construction within the LRSD.

While I accept that no communal instruction or education is imparted in this portion of the Monterey property, the space is integral to each public school and therefore is real property used for a public school and is exempt. Wellington property [ 73 ] This property operates as the Prince Charles Education Resource Centre and provides a variety of programs that support generally the operations of the WSD and to some extent operations of other programs utilized by other school divisions. The Interdivisional Student Services (ISS) is described in greater detail on p 7 above.

The program is directed at students who for various reasons cannot participate in schooling in traditional schools such that schooling required is provided to them at alternate locations. The programming is overseen by a Principal and Vice Principal who are located at the Wellington property. [ 74 ] In my view, this program and property is used for a public school within the exemption and is consistent with the definition of “school building” in the PS Act . [ 75 ] The audiovisual computer repair area within the Wellington property supports public schools and acts as a repair facility.

It is an area used for a public school and specifically for the computer and audiovisual equipment of a public school. It is therefore exempt. [ 76 ] The CSS provided at the Wellington property for the reasons noted above is space used by the CSU and is exempt. [ 77 ] The Library Support Services department acts as a teacher’s resource center and supports all of the schools of the WSD. Teacher’s in-services often take place in the resource/reference library. As well, the Professional Support Services Team provides teacher consultants and support staff for teachers.

In my view, these two departments provide support services for use in a public school and specifically for teachers who require resources in order to perform and meet the needs of present-day education. [ 78 ] The Wellington property also provides student tutoring of up to five students at a time and therefore is used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act . [ 79 ] The space used for mail distribution and laminating is a space that provides an administrative function for the WSD.

Consistent with the definition of “school building”, that portion of the building is used solely or chiefly for administrative functions of the school division, is not a “school building” and is not used for the operation of a public school. Therefore in my view, that portion of the building is not exempt pursuant to s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . Spruce properties [ 80 ] These properties are adjoining and are both owned and operated by the WSD. Both buildings operate as the Buildings

Department for the WSD. The buildings are used to address all infrastructure needs and maintenance required for the operation of public schools. The respondent City submits that both of these locations serve administrative functions and neither of the properties qualify for the exemption pursuant to s. 22(1) (

d) of the MA Act . In my view, the language of the exemption is broader than the

interpretation submitted by the respondents. Real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act includes buildings that are carrying out functions that are essential to the operation of a public school. The Building Department is an essential component that permits a public school to operate. In my view, the Building Department and the other activities carried out at the Spruce properties is real property that is used for a public school, within the meaning of the PS Act . Grassmere property [ 81 ] This is one of two properties within the jurisdiction of the Manitoba Provincial Assessor.

The real property is owned and operated by SOSD. The largest of the four buildings on this property is a service facility of over 26,000 square feet and an adjacent large parking lot. The next largest building is a Learning Centre which operates as a one-room classroom available for any of the school division’s teachers to reserve for education purposes. The third building is a storage garage adjacent to the Learning Centre.

It is used for the storage of garden tools and landscaping equipment. [ 82 ] A fourth building located on the property is a greenhouse, is not subject to assessment at the relevant time as the construction was not completed. The remainder of the property is comprised of naturalized areas, a wetland, a toboggan hill, a tree nursery, a gardening area and an area designated for future construction of a playground. [ 83 ] The respondent, Provincial Assessor, agrees that the Learning Centre is used as a classroom and is entirely exempt.

The Provincial Assessor also agrees that the carpentry shop is used, in part, for an adult learning cooperative vocational education program. As a result, the Provincial Assessor has deemed that an exemption should apply, such that twenty percent of the carpentry shop is determined to be exempt. The Provincial Assessor submits that the storage garage is non-exempt. [ 84 ] For the same reasons as noted above, I am satisfied these buildings are used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act .

The conference areas are used by school teams, school staff, teachers, for educational training sessions and for administration purposes. The storage facility stores plans and manuals that are used by schools. The storage facility also stores staging equipment that is used for a public school or schools during the school year.

If not for the storage facility, the individual schools would have to store this equipment as well as store computers that are no longer used at each of the schools. [ 85 ] Finally, the school bus fleet and mechanical garage are used in order to comply with the requirement to bus children to school pursuant to the PS Act . The school buses are used by a public school daily and for student field trips. There are six staff working out of the mechanical garage, employed as mechanics to maintain the school bus fleet as well as the divisional maintenance vehicle fleet.

The mechanical department is required to maintain school buses so that they are safe for use to transport children and are clearly used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act . [ 86 ] In my view, the Grassmere property is a hybrid property used for multiple purposes by the school division, including a Learning Centre, which operates as a classroom for teachers. The buildings are used for a public school or public schools.

Some of the services are centralized at this location and would have otherwise been housed at the various schools in the school division. [ 87 ] In my view, the exemption applies to this property subject to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares. [ 88 ] The findings of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in the Winnipeg School Division Appeal case referenced above apply to the Grassmere property. The Court of Appeal interpreted the language of both s. 22(1) (

d) and s. 24 of the MA Act . (See para 28) [ 89 ] Applying that

interpretation to the facts of this case, the intent of s. 24 is to extend the exemption to include contiguous land that may not be used for a public school or is not used for the needs of a public school. The Learning Centre is clearly used for a public school or used for the needs of a public school.

Section 24 exempts additional land abutting or contiguous to the already exempt real property to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares. 2057 Cansell Avenue [ 90 ] This property is owned and operated by the River East Transcona School Division. It is used for the school division’s school busing purposes. It houses the school bus fleet and maintenance garage and the Provincial Assessor submits that it does not attract the exemption. For the reasons stated above, school buses are an essential service provided for public schools pursuant to the provisions of the PS Act .

In my view, the school bus fleet maintenance garage and parking required for the school buses is real property used for a public school within the meaning of the PS Act , and therefore the exemption applies. Conclusion [ 91 ] The real property that is the subject of this appeal contains buildings that are used for a public school or for needs of a public school and therefore are exempt pursuant to s. 22(1)(

d) of the MA Act . To the extent that a portion of a building is not used for a public school or used for the needs of a public school, s. 24 exempts additional land abutting or contiguous to the already exempt real property to the maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares. [ 92 ] The

interpretation submitted to apply by the respondents is contrary to the modern approach to statutory

interpretation and the guiding principle set out in s. 6 of The

Interpretation Act which is to give a fair, large and liberal

interpretation that best ensures the attainment of

an Act’s objects.

Costs [ 93 ] The respondents submit that in light of the novelty of the issues at stake, the nature of the parties and the pooling of the efforts to efficiently consolidate a series of matters into one focussed joint hearing, the court should make no order as to costs regardless of the success or partial success of the parties. The applicant submits that the lion’s share of the work in preparing the material required for the hearing was completed by the applicant and that if the applicant is successful, it should be awarded costs. [ 94 ] I agree that the parties cooperated to proceed with this appeal.

That allowed for an efficiency in terms of time in court, costs and expense. However, I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs ought to be awarded to the successful party. In this case, the applicant was successful and I award costs to the applicant on a Class 4 basis pursuant to the Court of King’s Bench Tariff. J.

Schedule “A” The Municipal Assessment Act

Definitions 1(1) In this Act, ….. "improvement" means (

a) a building, fixture or structure that is erected or placed in, on, over or under land, whether or not the building, fixture or structure is affixed to the land and is capable of being transferred without special mention by a transfer of the land, and includes (

b) a part of a building, fixture or structure under clause (a), (

c) plant, machinery, equipment and containers that are used in the retail marketing of oil and oil products, (

d) pipeline, (

e) railway roadway, (

f) railway track, (

g) a mobile home that is not required by a municipality to be licensed under The Municipal Act , (

h) a mobile home that is not required by the City of Winnipeg to be licensed under The City of Winnipeg Charter , (

i) a mobile home that is not registered as a trailer under The Drivers and Vehicles Act ; ….. "real property" means land and improvements on the land and includes

(

a) an interest held in land or an improvement, (

b) air, surface or subsurface rights and interests in respect of land, and does not include mines or minerals; ….. Liability to taxation 20 Re

[…]