Unlicensed representatives may act as both advocate and witness in Assessment Review Board proceedings.
In a property assessment appeal, the municipal assessment corporation proposed that its representative, an unlicensed property assessor, also testify as a witness.
The appellants objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals could perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.
The Assessment Review Board held that its Rules do not prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both an advocate and a witness.
The Board found that the specific rule permitting paralegals to perform the dual role was enacted to satisfy the Law Society's Paralegal Rules of Conduct, not to restrict unlicensed representatives who are otherwise permitted to appear.
Consent motion for disclosure of MPAC valuation documents and third-party records granted.
The moving party, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, brought a motion requesting disclosure of documents from MPAC, including documents related to third persons not party to the appeals.
Notice was provided to the third persons, and no objections were received.
The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, ordering MPAC to produce the requested valuation documents, rent rolls, and capitalization rate studies, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
An unlicensed representative may act as both an advocate and a witness in an Assessment Review Board proceeding.
MPAC brought a motion to determine whether an unlicensed representative, specifically an MPAC property assessor, could act as both an advocate and a witness in a summary proceeding before the Assessment Review Board.
The respondents objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals were permitted to perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.
The Board found that its Rules, the Law Society Act, and By-Law 4 do not expressly prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both a representative and a witness.
The Board concluded that an unlicensed representative may perform the dual role, declining to follow a previous Board decision to the contrary.
Property assessment appeals dismissed after the appellant and her representative failed to attend a peremptory hearing.
The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
After an initial adjournment due to her representative's sudden illness, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing date.
Neither the appellant nor her representative appeared at the peremptory hearing, nor did they file any documents.
Consequently, the Board granted the respondent's request to dismiss the appeals for non-attendance.
Board partially grants property owner's motion for disclosure of MPAC assessment data and reconsideration reports.
The appellant property owner filed two motions seeking procedural directions and the disclosure of various documents from MPAC in an assessment appeal.
The Assessment Review Board granted the motions in part.
The Board ordered MPAC to disclose sales data for specific streets, a map of the neighbourhood boundaries, and the valuation and equity analysis reports prepared during the Request for Reconsideration phase.
The Board denied requests for assessed values from the previous cycle, mass appraisal explanations, internal MPAC manuals, and the preliminary list of comparable properties, finding them either irrelevant or disproportionate.
Costs applications dismissed as conduct of the Approval Holder and Director was not unreasonable or in bad faith.
Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.
The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.
The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.
Request to combine assessment appeals denied for lack of jurisdiction over common issues; common commencement date granted on consent.
Canadian Tire requested to combine 155 property assessment appeals and assign them a common commencement date.
The Assessment Review Board denied the request to combine the appeals, finding that the alleged common issues—the application of a private Memorandum of Understanding and development charges—were outside the Board's jurisdiction, meaning the requirements of Rule 78 were not met.
However, the Board granted the request to assign a common commencement date of March 30, 2018, but only for those appeals where all parties, including the respective municipalities, consented.
Request for review of property assessment decision denied; no errors of fact, law, or procedural fairness found.
The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the residential portion of their property assessments due to nearby electrical infrastructure, but did not reduce the farm portion.
The Requester argued the Presiding Members failed to properly consider evidence of devaluation, denied procedural fairness by accepting a book of authorities late, and demonstrated bias.
The Board denied the request for review, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of evidence, no denial of natural justice in accepting jurisprudence, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.
Motion for adjournment denied; expert witness's conference attendance does not justify delaying a four-year-old appeal.
The appellant, Viva Properties Limited, brought a motion in writing seeking an adjournment of the hearing of its assessment appeals, scheduled to commence the following day.
The sole reason provided was that the appellant's expert witness was scheduled to attend a conference.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, noting that the appeals had been outstanding for four years, the conference dates were known well in advance, and the appellant failed to request a different date upon receiving the Notice of Hearing.
The Board held that attendance at an annual conference does not take precedence over a scheduled hearing.
Tribunal granted a remedy hearing following findings that a wind project would cause serious harm.
The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.
The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.
The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.
The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.
The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.
Tribunal sets schedule and in-person format for remedy phase of wind project appeal.
The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.
The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.
Tribunal granted parties the opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on remedies for environmental harm.
The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.
The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.
Appeal dismissed and Director's Order revoked after required environmental work was completed by other parties.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order Amendment requiring work at a Tailings Management Facility.
Prior to the hearing, the required work was completed by other named parties, and the Director proposed to revoke the Order against the appellant.
The Tribunal reviewed the proposed revocation under Rule 202, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order against the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.
Wind turbine project approval appealed successfully due to aviation safety risks and harm to endangered bats.
The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.
The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.
The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.
The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.
The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.
Property assessment confirmed; differing Gross Income Multipliers do not inherently demonstrate inequity without evidence of incorrect current values.
The appellant appealed the 2013 and 2014 property tax assessments for a 43-unit apartment building, arguing that the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) applied by MPAC was higher than that applied to similar properties in a nearby neighbourhood, resulting in an inequitable assessment.
The Assessment Review Board held a re-hearing solely on the equity issue.
The Board found that the appellant failed to demonstrate inequity, as differing GIMs do not inherently prove inequity if the resulting current values are correct.
The Board accepted MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio (ASR) study as the best evidence, which confirmed that the correct current value was equitable relative to similar lands in the vicinity.
The assessment was confirmed.
Tribunal adjourns renewable energy appeal hearing by 64 days to allow sufficient time for deliberation.
The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.
The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.
Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.
Tribunal issued procedural directions for mediation and hearing of an appeal regarding a demolition waste order.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and execution of a demolition waste source separation program for an ongoing mill demolition.
Following a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued procedural directions scheduling mediation, the exchange of disclosure and witness statements, and dates for the main hearing.
The Tribunal also provided directions for scheduling a motion to stay the Director's Order.
Appeal dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction to apportion property taxes that have already been paid.
The appellants sold a portion of their industrial property to Canada Post and subsequently paid the property taxes for the entire block in full.
They then applied to the Town of Richmond Hill to apportion the taxes between the two parcels under s. 356 of the Municipal Act, seeking a refund.
The Town apportioned the taxes based on MPAC's statement of relative value, which the appellants argued was incorrect.
The appellants appealed the Town's decision to the Assessment Review Board.
The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction under s. 356(1)(b) is strictly limited to the apportionment of unpaid taxes, and it has no authority to hear appeals regarding the apportionment of taxes that have already been paid.
Tribunal grants participant and presenter status to various parties in wind turbine project appeal.
At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.
The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.
The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.
Provincial Officer's Order revoked and appeal dismissed following successful mediation and partial compliance.
The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the removal of waste and installation of spill containment structures at a waste transfer site.
Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement and requested the revocation of the Order.
The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the waste removal requirements and was working towards compliance with the spill containment requirements under the supervision of the local Ministry office.
The Tribunal concluded that revoking the Order was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order, and dismissed the appeal.