The WSD v. City of Winnipeg et al.

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,

) The City of Winnipeg

)

CITY OF WINNIPEG AND ASSESSOR FOR

CITY OF WINNIPEG,

) Denis G. Guénette,

respondents. ) for the respondent,

) The Provincial Municipal

) Assessor

)

) JUDGMENT DELIVERED:

) October 3, 2022

Page: 2

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)

b)

c)

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;

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

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:

Page: 3

Real property partial exemptions

Exemptions partielles

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

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;

[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)

b)

c)

Affidavit of Paul Kochan, sworn May 5, 2022, Chief Financial Officer and

Secretary-Treasurer of the Winnipeg School Division (“WSD”);

Affidavit of Jamie Rudnicki, sworn April 29, 2022, Secretary-Treasurer and

Chief Financial Officer of the Louis Riel School Division (“LRSD”);

Affidavit of Jennifer Maitre, sworn May 4, 2022, Secretary-Treasurer of the

Seven Oaks School Division (“SOSD”);

Page: 4

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)

b)

c)

d)

50 Monterey Road in the City of Winnipeg, in the LRSD, which is a resource

property/maintenance building/hybrid building (the “Monterey property”);

1075 Wellington Avenue in the City of Winnipeg in the WSD, which is a

resource property (the “Wellington property”);

1395 Spruce in the City of Winnipeg, in the WSD, which is a maintenance

building;

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. the 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);

Page: 5

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

Page: 6

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);

Page: 7

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;

Page: 8

- 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);

Page: 9

 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

Page: 10

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

Page: 11

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;

 workshops 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

Page: 12

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.

1395 Spruce

d)

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

Page: 13

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

Page: 14

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

Page: 15

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

storage buildings, 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 is being served by that

building, or whether it is serving a school division generally. Under the legislation

which, in my capacity as an assessor, 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

Page: 16

 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, he expresses the view that the activities are

administrative in nature and for the needs of the school division and that “it was not

required as or a place that imparted education.” Mr. Dupuis however acknowledges that

the Quest Program takes place in a single classroom and therefore accepts that the space

used for that single classroom is exempt from taxation. He views the remaining space at

the Monterey property 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), 1998 SCC 837,

[1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 (“Rizzo”) at para 21 (a recent example of the Supreme Court of

Canada’s reliance on the Rizzo approach to statutory interpretation is found in

MediaQMI Inc. v. Kamel, 2021 SCC 23 (“MediaQMI”). The modern approach to

statutory interpretation is that “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context,

in their 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 interpreted liberally having regard to its purpose. Section

6 of The Interpretation Act reads:

Page: 17

Rule of liberal interpretation

Every Act and regulation must be interpreted as being remedial and must

6

be given the fair, large and liberal interpretation that best ensures 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, a short 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 modern approach. Tax exemptions should not

be strictly construed. This principle was made clear in Québec (Communauté

urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, 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 exemption should be strictly construed.

It is not incorrect to say that when the legislature makes a general rule and lists

certain exceptions, the latter must be regarded as exhaustive and so strictly

construed. That does not mean, however, that this rule should be transposed to

tax matters so as to make an absolute parallel between the concepts of exemption

and exception. With respect, adhering to the principle that taxation is clearly the

rule and exemption the exception no longer corresponds to the reality of present-

day tax law. Such a way of looking at things 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. By

submitting tax legislation to a teleological interpretation it can be seen that there

is nothing to prevent a general policy of raising funds from being subject to a

secondary policy of exempting social works. Both are legitimate purposes which

equally embody the legislative intent and it is thus hard to see why one should

take precedence over the other.

Page: 18

[21] The Winnipeg School Division case addressed the use of legislative purpose in

statutory interpretation in the context of municipal assessment legislation quoting from

the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Ottawa Salus Corp. v. Municipal Property

Assessment Corp., 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 to assessment and taxation .

. .". In Canadian Mental Health Ass'n v. Ontario Property Assessment Corp., [2002]

O.J. No. 2199 (QL), 31 M.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 a

general 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 following exemptions from

taxation". Twenty-nine exemptions follow, including exemptions for churches,

public education institutions, public hospitals, houses of refuge, charitable

institutions, small theatres and large non-profit theatres. Many of the organizations

listed in the exemption paragraphs perform activities which are of great benefit to

either discrete groups of disadvantaged persons or to society as a whole.

Exemption from property tax allows these organizations to spend more of their

limited resources on those activities. The clear implication of these exemptions is

that while there is a substantial public interest in the generation of revenue

through the taxation of real property, in the context of the real property covered

by these exemptions, that public interest is outweighed by the public interest in

giving 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 Westman Regional Health Authority Inc. v.

Souris (Town), 2002 MBCA 67, 163 Man. R. (2d) 294. Steel J.A. concurring with the

majority noted as follows:

20

Both parties agreed that the Supreme Court of Canada in Québec

(Communauté Urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3,

set out the principles that should guide a court when interpreting tax legislation.

These principles are summarized in that case as follows, at p. 20:

Page: 19

- 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 must be 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, and not 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 in favour of the

taxpayer.

21

Although the primary purpose of a taxing statute is to raise revenues, such

legislation also "serves other purposes and functions as a tool of economic and

social policy" (Bon-Secours, at p. 18). At first blush, it would seem sensible that if

administrative services were exempt from municipal taxation when attached to a

hospital, then those services should remain tax-free even though they have been

consolidated in a central location for purposes of a more cost effective and efficient

operation. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Buanderie Centrale de

Montréal Inc. v. Montreal (City); Conseil de la Santé et des Services Sociaux de la

Région de Montréal Métropolitain v. Montreal (City), [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 to combine 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 agree that 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

French version refers to real property “used for the needs of a public school”. The French

version includes the word “besoins” which translated to English means “needs”.

Page: 20

[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 the Winnipeg 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 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.

[25] The parties agree that the guiding principles to be followed in interpreting bilingual

legislation is set out in R. v. S.A.C., 2008 SCC 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 Court has on a number of

occasions discussed the appropriate approach for determining the shared meaning

of English and French legislative provisions: 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,

2002 SCC 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 of discrepancy is involved. There are three possibilities. First,

the English and French versions may be irreconcilable. In such cases, it will be

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 plain and 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 two versions 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. In the penal context,

courts must also ensure that any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the accused

Page: 21

whose liberty is at stake (Marcotte v. Deputy Attorney General for Canada, [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 Court of Canada has made it clear that

statutory interpretation entails discerning legislative intent by examining statutory context

in its grammatical 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).

Page: 22

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:

Page: 23

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)

b)

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

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)

e)

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

Identify pupils who are disengaged or at risk of becoming disengaged from

school programming (s. 41(1)(k.1) of the PS Act);

Build, repair, furnish and keep in order school buildings (s. 41(1)(72.2) of

the PS Act);

f)

Page: 24

g)

h)

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

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;

Page: 25

 "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

Page: 26

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

Page: 27

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)

b)

c)

d)

Bus students as required pursuant to the PS Act, to and from home, from

school to school and to and from extracurricular activities;

Use computers within the public schools and classrooms of the public

schools;

Provide support for the well-being of students from a mental, emotional and

physical perspective;

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)

f)

Provide support to its teachers through ongoing professional development

and access to resources to enhance the teaching capability of teachers; and

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

Page: 28

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

Page: 29

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

Page: 30

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

Page: 31

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:

Page: 32

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

Page: 33

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;

Page: 34

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

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.

d)

[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

Page: 35

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

Page: 36

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

Exemptions partielles

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

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

Page: 37

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

Page: 38

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)

c)

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;

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;

Page: 39

e)

f)

Meeting rooms used for meetings of the ISP; and

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.

Page: 40

[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

Page: 41

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

Page: 42

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

Page: 43

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

Page: 44

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.

Page: 45

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.

Page: 46

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.

Page: 47

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

Real property situated in a municipality is subject to taxation levied by the

municipality, unless otherwise provided in this Part.

…..

Page: 48

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

(a) is owned by, or is held in trust for,

(i) the municipality that levies the taxation,

(ii) the board of a watershed district established or continued under The

Watershed Districts Act,

(iii) [repealed] S.M. 1989-90, c. 65, s. 12,

(iv) [repealed] S.M. 1995, c. 35, s. 3,

(v) the corporation continued under The Manitoba Hydro Act, being Manitoba

Hydro, or a subsidiary company of Manitoba Hydro,

(vi) [repealed] S.M. 1996, c. 79, s. 35,

(vii) the Manitoba Water Services Board continued under The Manitoba Water

Services Board Act,

(viii) Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation under The Manitoba Liquor and

Lotteries Corporation Act;

(b) is owned or used by, or is held for use by, a university;

(b.1) is owned or used by, or is held for use by, a college as defined in section 1 of

The Advanced Education Administration Act;

(b.2) is owned or used by, or is held for use by, University College of the North as

established in The University College of the North Act;

(b.3) is used as the conservation centre, as defined in section 1 of The Polar Bear

Protection Act, and is used or operated, or held for use or operation, by

Assiniboine Park Conservancy Inc.;

(b.4) is owned or used by, or is held for use by, the Manitoba Institute of Trades and

Technology continued under The Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology

Act, to a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares;

(c) is real property that was exempt from taxation under subsection 6(1) of The

Health Sciences Centre Act immediately before April 1, 2000 and that continues

to be used for a purpose for which an exemption was available on that day;

(c.1) is real property (other than a residence) owned or beneficially owned by Shared

Health — or owned by a corporation of which Shared Health is a shareholder or

member and which has as its shareholders or members only not-for-profit

corporations — and located in The City of Winnipeg within the area bounded on

the west by Tecumseh Street, on the south by Notre Dame Avenue, on the east

by Sherbrook Street, and on the north by Elgin Avenue excepting the area north

of the Public Lane which lies between William Avenue and Elgin Avenue and

west of Parcel D Plan 51955 WLTO;

(c.2) is a residence operated by or in connection with Shared Health for

undergraduate students in the health professions who are taking training at the

Health Sciences Centre, to a maximum exemption of 0.81 hectare;

Page: 49

(d) is used for a public school within the meaning of The Public Schools Act or an

independent school within the meaning of The Education Administration Act, to

a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares;

(d.1) is used as a regional library, as defined in section 1 of The Public Libraries Act,

to a maximum exemption of 0.81 hectare;

(e) is used for a hospital, to a maximum exemption of 4.047 hectares;

(f)

is used by an educational institution that prepares pupils for the examinations

of, and is affiliated with, a university, to a maximum exemption of 1.62 hectares;

(g) is owned or used by a municipality, religious denomination or non-profit

corporation as a cemetery, to a maximum exemption of 8.09 hectares;

(h) [repealed] S.M. 1998, c. 34, s. 8;

(i)

(j)

is owned by a religious denomination and is occupied and used by the

denomination primarily

(i) as a church, synagogue or place of religious worship,

(ii) as a religious retreat house, or

(iii) for religious instructional purposes,

to a maximum exemption of 0.81 hectare;

is owned and used by

(i) Providence University College and Theological Seminary, or

(ii) [repealed] S.M. 1998, c. 49, s. 19,

(iii) [repealed] S.M. 1998, c. 34, s. 8,

(iv) [repealed] S.M. 1998, c. 49, s. 19,

(v) The Salvation Army William and Catherine Booth University College;

for religious, educational or training purposes;

(j.1) is owned or used by, or is held for use by, the corporation continued by The

Canadian Mennonite University Act, for religious, educational or training

purposes;

(k) is used primarily as a non-profit day care centre licenced under The Community

Child Care Standards Act;

(l)

is exempt from school taxes under subsection 23(1) and is exempted by by-law

of the municipality from taxation for municipal purposes;

(m) is owned by the Rural Municipality of Langford, the Rural Municipality of

Rosedale and the Town of Neepawa, and is described as lots 8 to 13 and 21 to

25, Block 100, Plan 256 in the Town of Neepawa;

(n) is owned by the Dauphin Veterans' Association, used and occupied by the

Association and other organizations comprising members or ex-members of Her

Majesty's Forces, and is located in lot 8, block 11, plan 243 in the Town of

Dauphin;

(n.1) is used primarily by The Royal Canadian Legion or The Army, Navy and Air Force

Veterans in Canada, to a maximum exemption of 0.81 hectare;

(o) is owned by the Government of Canada and leased to an incorporated non-

profit harbour authority for use as a fishing harbour, including water lots and

wharves used for the operation of the fishing harbour, but excluding real

Page: 50

property used for processing or manufacturing, or for any other commercial

purpose;

(p) is used as a public multi-purpose recreational trail and is owned by

(i) the Manitoba Recreational Trails Association Inc. or a corporation it controls,

or

(ii) a non-profit organization whose membership is open to the public and whose

purposes and objects are substantially the same as those of the Manitoba

Recreational Trails Association Inc.;

(q) is used or occupied by The Fort Whyte Foundation Inc., and is described as Lot

2, Plan 18023, WLTO in O.T.M. Lots 6 to 17, Parish of St. Charles.

…..

Contiguous land exemption

24

An exemption applicable to real property under subsection 22(1) or section 23

extends to include land that is contiguous to the real property.

The Public Schools Act

WHEREAS a strong public school system is a fundamental element of a democratic

society;

AND WHEREAS the purpose of the public school system is to serve the best educational

interests of students;

AND WHEREAS the public school system should contribute to the development of

students' talents and abilities;

AND WHEREAS public schools should contribute to the development of a fair,

compassionate, healthy and prosperous society;

AND WHEREAS the public school system must take into account the diverse needs and

interests of the people of Manitoba;

AND WHEREAS democratic local school divisions and districts play an important role in

providing public education that is responsive to local needs and conditions;

AND WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to be knowledgeable about and

participate in the education of their children;

AND WHEREAS public schools require skilled and committed staff in order to be effective;

Page: 51

AND WHEREAS it is in the public interest to further harmonious relations between

teachers and their employers through a process of collective bargaining consistent with

the principle that resources must be managed efficiently and effectively;

AND WHEREAS the Province of Manitoba and school divisions and districts share

responsibility for the financing of the public schools;

Definitions

1(1) In this Act,

…..

"public school" means an institution for educational purposes established and

maintained under this Act or The Education Administration Act;

"school" means a public school;

"school board" means the board of trustees of a school division or a school district;

"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;

"school district" means a school district which is not designated by the minister as

a remote school district;

"school division" means a school division having the responsibility of providing for

elementary and secondary public school education and includes a remote school

district as designated in subsection 3(4) but does not include a school district;

"school moneys" means moneys that are the property of, or are payable to, a school

division or a school district;

"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;

Page: 52

PART III

POWERS AND DUTIES

OF SCHOOL BOARDS AND

EMPLOYEES OF SCHOOL DIVISIONS

AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

DUTIES OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Certain duties of school boards

41(1) Every school board shall

(a) provide adequate school accommodation for the resident persons who have the

right to attend school as provided in section 259;

(a.1) provide, as may be directed or prescribed by the minister, appropriate

educational programming for every

(i) pupil enrolled as provided for in section 58.4, and

(ii) resident person who has the right to attend school as provided in section 259;

…..

(b.1) ensure that each pupil enrolled in a school within the jurisdiction of the school

board is provided with a safe and caring school environment that fosters and

maintains respectful and responsible behaviours;

…..

(b.3) ensure that a written policy respecting school food and nutrition is prepared for

each school in the school division or school district, and that

(i) the policy is reviewed at least once in each year by the school's parent

advisory council, local school committee or school committee, and

(ii) information about actions taken to implement the policy is reported as part

of the school's annual school plan;

…..

(k.1) identify pupils who are disengaged from school, or who are at risk of becoming

disengaged, and establish policies and procedures to support them becoming

(i) re-engaged in school programming, or

(ii) engaged in activities or programs prescribed under section 262.2, in the case

of pupils who are 15 years of age or older and who have significant difficulties

in engaging in school programming;

…..

(o) select and purchase or rent school sites and premises, and build, repair, furnish,

keep in order and regulate the use of the school buildings, lands, enclosures

and movable property;

…..

Page: 53

Programs not offered locally

41(5) Subject to any regulations made under The Education Administration Act every

school board shall make provision for a pupil to attend a school in another school division

or school district for a program not provided by the pupil's home school division or school

district and the pupil's home school division or school district is responsible for paying the

residual costs of the education.

TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS

General limitations

43(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations, in all cases where

transportation of pupils is required, it shall be provided for those pupils who would have

more than 1.6 kilometers to walk in order to reach school, and, further, provision for

transportation from home to school shall be made regardless of distance for those pupils

who are unable to walk to school because of physical or other handicaps.

Requirements

43(2) Subject to subsection (1) and the regulations, each school board shall provide or

make provision for the transportation of all resident pupils to and from school or may pay

all or part of the living expense of such pupils in lieu of providing transportation.

…..

Regulations respecting school transportation

46(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that are ancillary to

and not inconsistent with any provisions of this Act respecting the standards of

transportation provided by school divisions and school districts for pupils and without

restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make

regulations,

(a) respecting the duties, powers and functions of drivers of vehicles used for such

transportation, of persons contracting for such transportation, and of school

officials, principals and teachers in respect of such transportation;

(b) respecting the testing of vehicles used for such transportation and the testing

of the drivers thereof;

(c) respecting the use of vehicles used for such transportation, for purposes other

than such transportation;

(d) prescribing standards and specifications to be met and maintained respecting

vehicles used for such transportation and equipment thereon, and prescribing

procedures for the enforcement of such standards and the persons who may

enforce such standards;

(e) respecting the powers and duties of school patrols in respect of such

transportation and the vehicles used therefor;

Page: 54

(f)

prescribing rules of safety including emergency procedures to be followed in

respect of such transportation and the vehicles used therefor, by the drivers

thereof, the students, and the school officials, principals and teachers.

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Community use policy

47.4(1) Each school board must develop a policy for the public's use of school facilities

— being schools and school grounds, or any portion of them — when the facilities are

not being used by pupils.

…..

Content of policy

47.4(2) The community use policy must establish

(a) the manner for determining when school facilities are to be made available to

the public; and

(b) the terms and conditions for public use of the school facilities, including

(i) subject to subsection (3), the fees, or the manner of determining the fees, if

any, to be charged,

(ii) the entry requirements and supervision to be provided, if any, for when the

facilities are used at different times, including during school hours, evenings,

weekends and holidays,

(iii) the process to be followed to reserve use of the facilities,

(iv) how priority will be determined when two or more potential users apply to

use the same facilities at the same time,

(v) the manner and time period in which a user who has reserved the facilities is

to give notice if they will not use the facilities at the reserved time,

(vi) the insurance, if any, that must be held by users, and the circumstances in

which users are expected to indemnify the school division or school district

for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the use,

(vii) the process to be followed in resolving disputes related to the public's use of

the facilities, and

(viii) any other provision that the board considers necessary to assist the school

division or school district in implementing the community use policy.

Fees limited to amounts necessary to recover costs

47.4(3) The fee charged in respect of the public's use of a school facility must not exceed

the amount necessary for the school division or school district to recover the costs it

incurs because of the public's use of the facility.

…..

Page: 55

Repair and rental of buildings

72(2) Every school board shall keep its school buildings, contents and premises in

proper repair and may, subject to section 74, acquire by lease, buildings and property as

the school board deems necessary for its purposes.