Allyson Amster

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

Manulife sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that held it was estopped from appealing its 2021 and 2022 property tax assessments due to a prior settlement for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

Manulife also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's application of issue estoppel because the prior settlement explicitly applied only to the years under appeal and there had been no hearing on the merits regarding equitable adjustments.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders that dismissed her previous proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice to the responding parties, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay, obvious prejudice to the responding parties, and that the proposed appeals were devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that increased the assessed value of its property.

The Board had disposed of the matter based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, relying on ARB Rule 39 which deemed the non-participating applicant to have consented.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether ARB Rule 39 conflicts with s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which requires the consent of all parties to dispose of a proceeding without a hearing.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding an increase in the assessed value of its property.

The Board had previously increased the property's value based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, without the applicant's participation, relying on a rule that deemed non-responsive parties to not oppose settlements.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board erred in disposing of the proceeding without a hearing in the absence of the consent of all statutory parties, finding a potential conflict between the Board's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant, a non-profit housing corporation providing affordable and rent-geared-to-income housing, sought a declaration that its three properties were exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The respondents conceded the applicant served the poor but argued it was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' as required by the exemption.

Applying binding appellate authority, the court found that because the applicant's operations were fully funded by government subsidies and tenant rents, and its day-to-day management was outsourced to a for-profit entity, it did not provide relief through its own endeavors or funds.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the Assessment Review Board's decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board breached the moving party's procedural fairness rights.

The respondent and the Board took no position on the motion, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.