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 Actand 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 608618)  
[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 26522653):  
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 buildingand 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 Acts 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.  
 [an error occurred while processing this directive]

© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission