Canada: When Administrators Speak For Themselves — The Newfoundland And Labrador Court Of Appeal On Agency Standing

In 66202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. v. Municipal Assessment Agency Inc., 2019 NLCA 1, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the proper role of an administrative decision maker in a judicial review of its own decision. The court's three separate sets of reasons illustrate the subjectivity — and, ultimately, the practical futility — of assessing the appropriateness of an agency's approach to litigation.


The case was about the amount of property tax owed in respect of the Mountain View Retirement Center. 66202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. owned and operated the facility. The Municipal Assessment Agency assessed it. The City of Corner Brook taxed it, issuing Notices of Assessment for the 2014 Taxation year.

66202 challenged the Notices. It first sought review by a commissioner appointed under the province's Assessment Act, 2006, S.N.L. 2006, c. A-18.1. It argued that, because 95 percent of the property was a retirement home, with rooms rented to seniors, it had to be assessed as a residential property, rather than as a business. The commissioner disagreed. A statutory appeal followed to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. It failed. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

Three takes on agency standing

Each of the three members of the Court of Appeal panel wrote separate reasons. Welsh J.A. wrote the lead judgment. Each of White and Hoegg JJ.A. concurred in the result, while adding their own comments on the Agency's participation in the appeal.

Welsh J.A. — expertise recognized

In his reasons, Welsh J.A. referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance on agency standing in Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44. There, Rothstein J. supplied a non-exhaustive list of three factors to inform a reviewing court's exercise of discretion in defining an agency's participation in an appeal, where a statute does not clearly address the issue:

(1) If an appeal or review were to be otherwise unopposed, a reviewing court may benefit by exercising its discretion to grant tribunal standing;

(2) If there are other parties available to oppose an appeal or review, and those parties have the necessary knowledge and expertise to fully make and respond to arguments on appeal or review, tribunal standing may be less important in ensuring just outcomes; and

(3) Whether the tribunal adjudicates individual conflicts between two adversarial parties, or whether it instead serves a policy-making, regulatory or investigative role, or acts on behalf of the public interest, bears on the degree to which impartiality concerns are raised. Such concerns may weigh more heavily where the tribunal served an adjudicatory function in the proceeding that is the subject of the appeal, while a proceeding in which the tribunal adopts a more regulatory role may not raise such concerns.

Welsh J.A. noted that the statute at issue (the Assessment Act) defines both the municipality and the Agency as potential parties to the appeal. This was sufficient to support the Agency's standing. However, Welsh J.A. also noted that, because of "the Agency's expertise, experience, and broad provincial perspective, which a municipality would not have, in assessing property", its participation served an important purpose:

[I]f the Agency did not have standing to take a position adverse to the property owner, [...] the result may be that the appeal would be unopposed or not fully argued. The nature of the exercise in assessing property is such that the municipality, a possible alternate party, may not have the knowledge and expertise to assist the court in reaching a correct and just determination. [Emphasis added.]

In this way, Welsh J.A. made clear that, even absent statutory authorization, Rothstein J.'s second factor would have supported the Agency's standing. There was consequently no doubt that the Agency was a proper party and empowered to make submissions in response to 66202's appeal.

But what sort of submissions would be appropriate? Welsh J.A.'s colleagues were split on that question.

White J.A. — partisanship criticized

Though White J.A. agreed that the Agency had standing to participate in the appeal, he was unimpressed with the manner in which it did so:

[A]n objective observer would see the Agency's position as that of a litigant seeking a win. As an administrative decision maker exercising a statutory right of participation, a more circumspect and nuanced approach than that of an adversary would better serve the public interest. This is particularly true when [66202] and the City of Corner Brook are able to appear before the Court as the "conventional" adversaries.

[I]t is inappropriate for the Agency to simply, and aggressively, advance arguments defending their assessment. The process would be better served by the Agency providing contextual information on their approach to assessment and on the implications of any potential findings of the Court. The role of amicus curiae comes to mind, with the Agency offering the Court the benefit of their knowledge and expertise to ensure the issues are fully and appropriately canvassed. [Emphasis added.]

Nothing followed from this criticism, however. White J.A. would have disposed of the appeal as Welsh J.A. proposed.

Hoegg J.A. — context emphasized

Though she agreed with White J.A. that "[i]t may not always be appropriate for the Agency to argue in defence of or in opposition to a commissioner's decision on appeal", Hoegg J.A. rose to the Agency's defence in this case. In her view, "[t]he content and tone of the Agency's submissions were both appropriate and necessary to permit a fully informed adjudication of the issues before the Court". This reflected a "contextual determination involving the governing legislation, the nature of the issues, and the presence or absence of other parties before the court".

Hoegg J.A. observed that: (1) though entitled to participate, the commissioner — whose initial decision to uphold the Agency's assessment was the matter under judicial review — had declined to participate; and (2) though a party, the City of Corner Brook's participation "was more akin to a watching brief". Without the Agency's arguments in support of its assessment, in other words, adversity would have been lacking. It thus "was not inappropriate for the Agency to argue that the commissioner' s decisions should be upheld".

This said, Hoegg J.A. noted that statutory authorization is not the end of the inquiry: "Party status [...] does not determine the appropriate role the party ought to take in the litigation".

Agency adversity and its discontents

It is impossible to announce bright-line parameters for agency participation on judicial review. It may, in some circumstances, be necessary to tie the agency's hands to maintain the appearance of impartiality. This is more likely to be the case with quasi-judicial administrative tribunals that carry on adjudicative functions, rather than policy-making, regulatory or investigative roles: see Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684, in which the Supreme Court of Canada limited the Alberta Public Utilities Board's role to an explanatory one — i.e., akin to an amicus curiae, and in line with White J.A.'s view in 66202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc.

On the other hand, an administrative decision maker may need to be more broadly involved on judicial review if the reviewing court is to decide the matter fully, correctly, and justly: see Ontario Power Generation, in which the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a flexible, contextual approach to agency standing which requires the court "to balance the need for fully formed adjudication against the importance of maintaining tribunal impartiality". The reasons of each of Welsh and Hoegg JJ.A. reflect this sort of balancing.

The difference between the three sets of reasons rendered in this case was not one of principle. Rather, it came down to the differences between each judge's subjective assessment of the Agency's approach to the litigation. This reflects the most compelling aspect of the approach the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed in Ontario Power Generation — namely, it affords considerable discretion to the reviewing court in assessing the propriety of the agency's participation.

But the splintering of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal also reflects a shortcoming of the Ontario Power Generation framework. While curial discretion may be exercised decisively by a single reviewing judge conducting, in Rothstein J.'s words, "first-instance review" of an administrative decision, it is unrealistic to expect a three-judge appellate panel to exercise similar discretion collectively on a further review to an appellate court. When multiple judges are called upon to exercise their discretion in a single case, results like the one in 66202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. are to be expected.

Two questions about three opinions

There was, however, only one result in 66202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. White J.A.'s dissatisfaction with the Agency's approach was of no practical consequence. This leaves us with two questions.

First, what is the appropriate remedy when an agency overreaches in its participation on judicial review? If an agency's standing is challenged as a preliminary matter, the reviewing court can ostensibly place prospective limits on its role in the litigation. But, here, the issue appears to have arisen during (or even after) the hearing of a second-level appeal. Even if all three judges had shared White J.A.'s dim view of the agency's partisanship, would the applicant (here, 62202) have been entitled to any relief?

Estey J., for the Supreme Court of Canada in Northwestern Utilities, commented that "active and even aggressive participation can have no other effect than to discredit the impartiality of an administrative tribunal either in the case where the matter is referred back to it, or in future proceedings involving similar interests and issues or the same parties". White J.A.'s separate reasons in 62202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. raise the issue of whether an after-the-fact expression of judicial disapproval, with no effect on the outcome of the litigation, can provide a sufficient disincentive to administrative decision makers that may be inclined to enter the ring on judicial review.

Second, after Ontario Power Generation, in what circumstances will it make sense for a private litigant to argue for limits on agency participation on judicial review? It is not clear from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal's reasons in 62202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. that the issue was actually raised by any of the parties, rather than by White J.A., behind the scenes, during the judgment-writing process. Given the subjectivity of the analysis and the lack of any effect on the outcome, it is not clear that — except where the agency's standing is itself in issue — it will ever be worth arguing that the administrative decision maker has overstepped.

The bottom line

As Welsh and Hoegg JJ.A. each affirmed, the dispositive consideration, where agency participation on judicial review is concerned, will be whether the agency's submissions will assist the court in justly determining the issue. Subject to the need to preserve the tribunal's appearance of impartiality, reviewing courts will loathe to criticize agencies that take part in the proceedings before them, particularly where they are statutorily authorized to do so. And, even where a decision maker is unduly adversarial, there will be no material penalty to accompany the court's disapprobation.

There is little doubt that agency participation in the judicial review process will continue to generate controversy. As 62202 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. illustrates, that controversy will be as much between judges as before them.

To view the original article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions