[1] LEVINE, J.A.: This application for leave to appeal is brought by the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children Inc. ("VOC"), from a decision of a justice of the Supreme Court, on an appeal from a decision of the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

[2] The issue concerns the liability to property taxation of VOC, a registered charity which provides education for hearing impaired children. The issue before the justice and the Board, and before that the Property Assessment Review Panel, was the proper interpretation of the meaning of the term "registered owner" in the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, as amended. There is an apparent conflict between the definition of "registered owner" in the Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 20, and in the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 328. The issue is which definition of "registered owner" applies to VOC with respect to its liability for taxation under the Vancouver Charter.

[3] The Panel granted an exemption to property tax for 95 percent of the assessed value occupied by VOC under lease from another charity. The Board reversed that decision and the decision of the Board was upheld by the Supreme Court justice.

[4] I have reviewed the submissions and authorities provided by counsel on this matter as well as the decisions of the Board and the Supreme Court. It is my view that this is an appropriate case for leave to be granted.

[5] The tests for granting leave from a tribunal and, in particular, in a matter concerning property assessment, were set out in Queen's Plate Development Ltd. and Hearthside Manor Ltd. v. Assessor of Area 09 - Vancouver (1987), 16 B.C.L.R. (2d) 104 (C.A.), a decision of Mr. Justice Taggart of this Court. He suggested that in determining whether leave should be granted, a justice may have regard for one or more of the matters set out at p. 109 of his decision.

[1] Whether the proposed appeal raises a question of general importance as to the extent of jurisdiction of the tribunal appealed from. The parties are in agreement that there is no issue of jurisdiction in this case.

[2] Whether the appeal is limited to questions of law involving the application of statutory provisions, a statutory interpretation that was particularly important to the litigant or interpretation of standard wording which appears in many statutes. In this case, the appeal is limited to questions of law involving the application of statutory provisions and a matter of statutory interpretation that is particularly important to VOC.

[3] Whether there was a marked difference of opinion in the decisions below and sufficient merit in the issue put forward. There was a division between the Panel and the Board, although the justice agreed with the Board. In my view, there is sufficient merit in the issue put forward for the matter to be argued before a panel of this court.

[4] Whether there is some prospect of the appeal succeeding on its merits. All I will say about that is that it appears to me there is an arguable case.

[5] Whether there is any clear benefit to be derived from the appeal. There will be a clear benefit to VOC if it is successful on the appeal. It will be exempt from property tax, whereas its present position is that it is liable for tax.

[6] Whether the issue on appeal has been considered by a number of appellate bodies. In this case both the Board and the Supreme Court are appellate bodies in that the Board hears appeals from the Panel and the Supreme Court hears appeals from the Board. There is, however, no decision of this Court and, in my view, this is a matter of sufficient importance that consideration by a panel of this Court is appropriate in the circumstances.

[6] In the result I am satisfied that the criteria for granting leave have been satisfied by the applicant and leave is granted.

[7] The question will be the question that was before the justice on the stated case from the Board.

"The Honourable Madam Justice Levine"