Is the imposition of tax rates for Class Q under Bylaw No. 279 of the City of Vancouver's Tax Billing Notice issue to Brinkworthy unreasonable?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Brinkworthy Properties Ltd. v North Salt Spring Waterworks District, 2017 BCSC 951 (CanLII):

Accordingly I find the imposition of the tax rates for Class Q as set out in Bylaw No. 279 and the 2017 Tax Billing Notice issue to Brinkworthy to be unreasonable and set aside the imposition of those rates on the basis that the tax rates set out in the bylaw do not meet the test of transparency and may well have been based on incorrect and improper assumptions. As stated by this court in Pucci v. North Vancouver (City), 2010 BCSC 743 at para 87:

Other Questions


How have the courts found that a person who is not a party to a class A notice of claim is entitled to class B? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a common issue or issue be tried in advance of individual issues? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a judge take judicial notice of the conversion rate of the respondent’s salary conversion rate at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the issues costs for a party who is substantially successful on a discrete issue or issue? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing a common issue in a class action? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a class member entitled to an opt-out from a settlement offer made directly to the class member? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does Bayer have to prove that individual issues predominate over any common issues? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a plaintiff add a common issue addressing whether the mortgage provisions in issue are illegal or contrary to public policy? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for common issues in a class action? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is a common issue in a class action? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.