Chester Gryski

An application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the current value assessment of a commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board committed an error of law by requiring the use of at least two of the three generally accepted property valuation approaches to establish current value.

The court held that, read as a whole, the Board’s reasons did not impose such a legal requirement but instead reflected a preference for the respondent’s expert evidence using the direct sales comparison approach.

The alleged error concerned the weight given to evidence, which is a question of fact and not appealable under the Assessment Act.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

Following a motion by the self-represented plaintiff to introduce new evidence and set aside an earlier order dismissing her action for lack of jurisdiction, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the motion was largely unsuccessful against the assessment-related defendants, it resulted in limited relief against the municipality permitting the filing of a fresh amended pleading restricted to a potential tort claim.

The court concluded that the assessment-related defendants were entitled to costs of the motion.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Assessment Review Board, substantial indemnity costs to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, and partial indemnity costs to the municipality after the plaintiff failed to deliver the contemplated fresh amended statement of claim.