Cynthia Kuehl

The registrant brought a motion to adjourn her discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

She sought the adjournment to bring a motion to vary the previous order, citing impecuniosity and an inability to comply.

The College opposed the adjournment.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, finding no risk to the public as the registrant's certificate of registration was cancelled, no prejudice to the College, and that the short delay was appropriate given her new pro bono counsel's oversight.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought a motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the complainant in a discipline hearing involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a pharmacist.

The College requested that the complainant be permitted to testify behind a physical screen so she would not have to see the registrant, while allowing the registrant to view her testimony via video transmission.

The registrant did not oppose the motion.

The Discipline Committee found that the complainant met the definition of a vulnerable witness under its Rules of Procedure and that the requested accommodations were necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter without prejudicing the registrant.

The motion was granted.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

In a property assessment appeal concerning 11 ONroute Service Centres, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of lease and income information from the appellants.

The motion was filed after the deadlines prescribed in the applicable Schedules of Events.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC was outside the prescribed timelines and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The Board noted that MPAC and other municipalities had identified the need for the information well before the deadlines but failed to bring a timely motion.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to prevent a proposed witness from acting as an expert witness in property assessment appeals, arguing the witness had acted as an advocate for the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion as premature, noting that under Rule 14(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a representative cannot act as both an advocate and a witness in a general proceeding without leave of the Board.

Since the appellant had not yet sought leave, it was unnecessary and improper to preemptively bar the witness.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow it to file Statements of Response after the deadline had passed.

Uxbridge argued that administrative challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of a significant Board decision regarding gravel pit valuation constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Uxbridge had made a conscious decision not to participate initially and that the release of a precedent-setting decision does not amount to an exceptional circumstance justifying an extension.

The Township of Warwick appealed the property assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

The central issue was whether the valuation of the landfill under section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 should include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, as the regulation mandates valuing the land as if it were vacant industrial land.

The Board set the current value of the property at $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Township of Warwick appealed the MPAC assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was whether section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 requires the valuation of the landfill as 'vacant industrial land' to include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 establishes a special valuation regime that ousts the general market value approach under section 19(1) of the Assessment Act.

Consequently, the value of the remaining landfilling capacity must be excluded.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $6,387,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.