Carl B. Davis

The parties stated a question of law to the Assessment Review Board regarding whether the market value of the rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site for property assessment purposes.

The Board held that the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Restfulcare applies to landfills, meaning that where lands have an inherent capacity for a certain use and a government approval authorizes that use, the value of the approval is a component part of the value of the land.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the market value of the rights associated with the ECA must be reflected in the current value of the landfill site.

The moving parties brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board state a case to the Divisional Court under section 43(1) of the Assessment Act.

The proposed question asked whether the market value of rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the question was either a mixed question of fact and law or a question of law that would attract deference on a reasonableness standard.

The Board concluded that specialized tribunals should not bypass their statutory role by referring questions to the court that the tribunal is expected to answer itself, even when all parties consent.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

Following a successful appeal regarding the interpretation of 'fee simple, if unencumbered' for property assessment purposes, the appellants (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued the claimed fees were excessive and that the appellants should have coordinated their submissions.

The court found the issues complex, the amounts at stake substantial, and no unnecessary overlap in arguments.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at $70,500 for fees and counsel fees for each appellant, plus their respective disbursements.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.

The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes in Toronto.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the statutory phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court held that the whole of the land must be assessed, and in the context of income-producing properties, 'fee simple, if unencumbered' means value calculated using market rents rather than actual rents, ensuring all interests in the land are valued.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'current value' as 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court found that the entire ownership interest, including both the landlord's and tenants' interests, must be valued, and that the 1997 amendment to the Assessment Act was intended to ensure consistency in valuation by requiring the use of market rents rather than actual rents.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that combined two separate lots on a registered plan of subdivision into a single assessment roll number classified as 'large industrial property class'.

The appellant argued the properties should be assessed separately as 'industrial property class'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the word 'parcel' under the Assessment Act and O. Reg. 282/98, as the properties were occupied by a single occupant and collectively exceeded the required square footage.

The Assessment Review Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's use of the income method to value duty free stores at international border crossings violated the Assessment Act by improperly considering the bridge or tunnel structure.

The applicants argued that revenue generated from customers using the bridges or tunnels should not be considered.

The Divisional Court held that the income method relies on the rental income specified in the lease and does not constitute a consideration of the bridge or tunnel structure itself.

The court answered the stated question in the negative.