Calvin Ho

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

The Board determined that the income approach was the most reliable method for valuing the property, rejecting the municipality's reliance on the cost approach.

After adjusting the capitalization rate based on comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $58,668,000.

The Board found insufficient evidence to warrant a further reduction for equity.

MPAC brought a motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act asking the Assessment Review Board to create late appeals for three roll numbers comprising a conservation area, arguing that significant errors in the recorded lot sizes constituted palpable errors.

The Board found that the massive discrepancies in the recorded acreage were plain and obvious, and therefore qualified as palpable errors.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to create the appeals, noting that s. 40.1 is an extraordinary remedy meant to cure situations where enforcing the statutory deadline would be highly prejudicial.

Since the public bodies involved had statutory remedies they failed to pursue and provided no evidence of unfairness, the motion was denied.

The applicant sought a bankruptcy order based on a loan debt that had become due more than two years before the bankruptcy application was commenced.

The respondent argued that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and therefore could not support a bankruptcy application.

The court held that the Limitations Act, 2002 bars a remedy but does not extinguish the underlying debt, meaning the debt may still constitute a debt “owing” for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also found written acknowledgments of the debt within the limitation period that would revive the claim in any event.

The bankruptcy application was granted and a trustee appointed.