Christopher Tanzola

The appellants appealed a decision quashing a property assessment against the respondent for advertising displays at Pearson International Airport.

The lower court had found that the respondent was not an occupant and that the assessment was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was an occupant under the Assessment Act as it had actual occupation, exclusive possession, value, and permanence.

The court also held that the doctrine of paramount occupancy did not apply, or alternatively, that the respondent was the paramount occupier.

Finally, the court found no evidence that the assessment corporation acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

The City of Mississauga, MPAC, and GTAA appealed a decision declaring that Exchange Corporation Canada Inc. was not a tenant of land owned by the Crown and therefore not liable to pay realty taxes for its space at Pearson International Airport.

Exchange cross-appealed the finding that its space was not an 'eligible property' under the Municipal Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in concluding Exchange was a licensee rather than a tenant, and dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the finding that the property was not an 'eligible property'.