Resolutions

Whereas Section 226 (1) of The Municipalities Act states:

A notice of appeal must be filed, together with any fee set by the council pursuant to section 224, at the address shown on the assessment notice:

(a) within 30 days after the day on which the notice of assessment is mailed to the person; or

(b) if no notice of assessment is mailed to the person, within 30 days after the later of:

(i)         the date on which the notice stating that the assessment notices have been sent is published pursuant to section 217; and

(ii)        the date on which the notice of a bylaw dispensing with the preparation of assessment notices is published pursuant to section 217; and

Whereas Section 226 (1.1) of The Municipalities Act states:

Notwithstanding clauses (1) (a) and (b), in the year of a revaluation pursuant to The Assessment Management Agency Act, a notice of appeal must be filed, together with any fee set by the council pursuant to section 224, within 60 days after the date mentioned in those clauses; and

Whereas the aforementioned wording leaves ambiguous whether the notice of appeal must be received, or merely sent, within the response periods, resulting in further appeals to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board;

Therefore be it resolved that the SUMA advocate the provincial Ministry of Government Relations to amend The Municipalities Act to add the words “and received by the municipality,” after the words “a notice of appeal must be filed,” in sections 226(1) and 226 (1.1).

• All three municipal Acts contain similar wording regarding appeals on property assessments, and the amendment suggested in the resolution will be considered the next time the Acts are open. This will be done in consultation with stakeholders to ensure the change does not potentially alter the meaning of the section.
• The terms ‘filed’, ‘served’, ‘given’, and ‘received’ will be reviewed with the Ministry of Justice with regard to the deemed service of documents provisions in the Acts to ensure they are as clear as possible and do not unfairly limit a person’s access to the appeal process due to different interpretations of wording and technicalities of how documents are sent and received.