Calvin Ho

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for compensation for the expropriation of a subsurface portion of a property by Metrolinx.

The parties were not prepared for the conference but indicated they were engaged in productive mediation discussions and communicating with other nearby property owners.

The Tribunal found it premature to schedule a second conference and advised the parties that Tribunal-led mediation could be arranged.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant and its guarantor for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenant failed to take possession and begin fixturing the premises, arguing the landlord had not completed its work to satisfaction.

The court interpreted the lease, finding that the tenant was obliged to take possession when the landlord's work was "sufficiently complete to permit fixturing" not fully complete.

The tenant's failure to take possession constituted repudiation of the lease.

The court awarded the landlord damages, holding both the tenant and the guarantor liable.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion seeking to declare a property transfer by the bankrupt to his spouse as a transfer at undervalue under section 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent opposed the motion and did not consent to it being heard by an Associate Judge sitting as a Registrar in Bankruptcy.

The Associate Judge traversed the motion to be heard by a Judge presiding over the Commercial List, leaving the issue of a registrar's jurisdiction to hear contested transfer at undervalue motions for another day.

The City of Brampton filed a request for review of a Board decision regarding an application by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to correct a palpable error on the Assessment Rolls for the taxation years 1995 to 2011.

The Board adopted its analysis from a related review decision concerning another unit in the same condominium complex.

The Board ordered the correction of the Assessment Rolls by removing the parent roll number for the subject property.

In a receivership and bankruptcy proceeding, a dispute arose regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property.

The 259 Group, a second mortgagee, had previously settled a motion regarding the distribution of holdback funds, resulting in a consent order.

The Trustee and a third mortgagee argued that this settlement finally determined the amount of indebtedness owed to the 259 Group, barring them from making a further secured claim in the bankruptcy.

The court applied the doctrine of issue estoppel and interpreted the consent order, concluding that the settlement only resolved the priority of the holdback funds, not the total indebtedness.

Therefore, the 259 Group was not barred from making a secured claim to the Trustee.

In a property assessment appeal, the City of Vaughan brought a motion to call a witness to provide oral testimony regarding a comparable sales analysis, despite failing to file a witness statement or expert report by the required deadline.

The City argued the witness would provide lay opinion evidence admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the request to call the witness, finding that the proposed testimony constituted expert opinion evidence on property valuation, which requires a compliant expert report under the Board's Rules.

The Board permitted the late filing of the City's Statement of Response, but clarified it could only be used to raise issues and not as evidence.

The owner requested a review of a Board decision that declined to correct a palpable error on the assessment rolls for the 1995-2011 taxation years.

The error involved a duplicate 'parent' assessment roll number remaining on the rolls after the property was converted to condominiums, resulting in double taxation.

The reviewing Vice-Chair found that the original decision erred in law by failing to balance the prejudice to the owner (who faced significant tax arrears and penalties) against the principles of finality and timing.

The Board varied the decision, finding that section 40.1(a) of the Assessment Act applied, and ordered the correction of the assessment rolls to remove the duplicate roll number.

The appellant sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals after the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) filed a Statement of Response seeking a higher assessment based on the property's development potential.

The appellant argued that MPAC's Statement of Response lacked particularity and failed to comply with Rule 38(7), and that the appellant would be prejudiced if not allowed to withdraw.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC's pleading provided a clear evidentiary pathway and complied with the rules.

The Board also held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, as MPAC is entitled under the Assessment Act to seek a higher assessment during an appeal.

The appellant appealed a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue requesting the Board to dispense with the appellant's witness statement and exclude the witness from testifying because the appellant failed to file the statement by the deadline set out in the schedule of events.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify extending the timeline under Rule 82.

The Board granted the respondent's request, excluded the witness, and ordered the main hearing to be rescheduled.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the City of Brampton and property owners to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors resulted in the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium unit roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that palpable errors existed, it declined to exercise its discretion to correct them.

The Board held that the municipality's failure to file timely appeals was due to its own internal policy limitations and mismanagement, making it neither unreasonable nor unfair to enforce the statutory filing deadlines.

The moving party brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and property owners to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors involved the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that the errors were palpable, it declined to exercise its discretion to create appeals.

The Board held that the municipality's reliance on the assessing authority to correct the errors, rather than filing timely appeals, did not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting historical errors outside the statutory time limits.

The appellant property owner sought to withdraw its assessment appeals.

MPAC objected and brought a motion to reinstate the appeals, arguing that it had given notice of its intention to request a higher assessment in its Statement of Response, which under Rule 72 precludes withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's Statement of Response constituted valid notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Board granted MPAC's motion and reinstated the appeals, noting the appellant could still bring a formal motion for permission to withdraw.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and the property owner for an extension of time to appeal property assessments for the 2005 to 2016 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the roll.

The errors involved the separate assessment of a recreation centre and dog grooming business that should have been exempt as condominium common elements.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the errors were not palpable because they were known to the parties for years and required extensive investigation to uncover.

The Board also noted it would not have exercised its discretion to correct the errors due to the parties' prolonged inaction and failure to file timely appeals.

Canadian National Railway brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing that three of its properties were incorrectly assessed as separate parcels rather than a single property, constituting a palpable error.

The Assessment Review Board found no palpable error for the years prior to 2013, as the properties did not abut and could be conveyed separately.

For the years after 2013, when the properties did abut, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief, finding that the moving party's failure to appeal in the normal course was due to simple inadvertence, which does not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting a palpable error.

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that granted the assessed person an extension of time to appeal her property assessments for the 2006 to 2016 taxation years due to a palpable error.

MPAC argued the Presiding Member erred in law by misapplying the test for exercising discretion under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, specifically regarding reasonableness, fairness, and prejudice.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member applied the appropriate legal framework and reasonably concluded that it would be unfair and highly prejudicial to penalize the assessed person for not meeting the statutory filing deadlines given the circumstances.

The moving parties sought permission to file a late appeal of their property assessments for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

They argued that a 2013 settlement agreement with MPAC should apply to subsequent years.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, they did not provide evidence that they failed to receive their notices of assessment, nor did they file their application within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment issues.

MPAC brought a motion on consent to extend the time for filing appeals for the 2006 to 2017 taxation years due to palpable errors in the assessment roll.

A condominium parking space had been assessed and taxed twice because of a historical conveyancing error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the double assessment constituted an inadvertent palpable error.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing appeals, noting it would be highly prejudicial to the property owner to leave the roll closed.

However, the Board declined MPAC's request to pre-judge the appeals and implement minutes of settlement before the appeals were formally filed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years for a property in the Township of Zorra.

MPAC argued the decision contained a significant error by reducing the 2016 assessment, which had already been corrected by MPAC to account for a land use restriction.

The Board agreed, finding that the previous decision effectively applied the land use reduction twice for the 2016 taxation year.

The Board varied the decision to confirm the corrected 2016 assessment value of $10,033,000.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large industrial warehouse property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined that the income approach was the most reliable method for valuing the property.

After reviewing expert evidence from the appellant, MPAC, and the municipality, the Board preferred the appellant's income approach analysis, subject to a minor adjustment to the capitalization rate.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $58,668,000 and found no basis to apply an equity reduction.