David G. Cowling

York University applied for a declaration that four student residence buildings on its campus, built and operated by a private developer, remained exempt from municipal property tax under section 18 of the York University Act, 1965.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued the buildings lost their exemption because they were used and occupied by the private developer for profit.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the buildings were used and occupied for the legislated purposes of the university, despite the involvement of a private developer, and therefore remained exempt from taxation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a stated case to the Divisional Court to determine whether the Durham Regional Police Service had a lawful excuse for refusing to produce certain emails responsive to a summons.

The DRPS claimed the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

After reviewing the emails, the court found they involved communications between senior members of the DRPS and their counsel related to the provision of legal advice.

The court held the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the DRPS was justified in withholding them.

The Appellant appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

In previous interim decisions, the Board confirmed the current values for 2009-2022.

MPAC sought to amend the 2017 current value to reflect a supplementary assessment for a body shop expansion completed mid-year.

The Board found that under the agreed Production Capacity Cost Approach Method, the expansion did not change the facility's normalized annual production capacity, and therefore did not increase the Replacement Cost New.

The Board concluded no amendment to the 2017 current value was required and directed the parties to finalize apportionments.

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The Appellant, General Motors of Canada Company, appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed that an equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act but disagreed on the quantum.

The Board found that the best evidence to determine the equitable reduction was the Appellant's approach, which focused on the lower average construction cost rates used by MPAC to calculate the replacement cost new for similar properties.

The Board ordered reductions to the current values for the taxation years under appeal based on the Appellant's proposed percentage reductions, but rejected the Appellant's request for an additional adjustment.

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 65-unit multi-residential property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach but disputed the potential gross income and the capitalization rate.

The Assessment Review Board determined the potential gross income by substituting market rents for subsidized units and established a capitalization rate of 7.16% based on comparable properties.

The Board concluded the current value of the property was $10,409,916, which was reduced to $9,577,000 after applying an agreed 8% equitable adjustment, resulting in a reduction from the returned assessment of $9,970,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding employment and insurance coverage actions.

The parties agreed on the settlement terms, including a $300,000 payment, but disagreed on the wording of the release.

The defendants sought a broad release that could potentially bar an ongoing oppression action, while the plaintiff sought to explicitly carve out the oppression action.

The court rejected both proposed releases, holding that the release must reflect the settlement agreement, and ordered a simple release limited to the claims made in the settled actions.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The moving party (appellant) sought to amend or vary a previous appeal decision to include severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing that evidence of the respondent's payroll was implicitly in the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not fall under Rule 59.06(1) for accidental slips or omissions, nor Rule 59.06(2) for new facts or fraud, as the moving party was attempting to re-argue an issue already considered and declined.

The court reiterated that it is not its role to scour the record for evidence not relied upon by parties.

The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence without leave was also rejected.

The appellant employee appealed a judgment upholding his dismissal for cause after a workplace incident involving non-consensual touching of a co-worker.

The appeal challenged factual findings, the just cause conclusion, and sought Employment Standards Act (ESA) benefits and punitive damages for litigation misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding just cause and punitive damages, but allowed the appeal for ESA termination pay, finding the conduct did not meet the "wilful misconduct" standard for disentitlement.

The court also set aside the trial costs due to the respondent's egregious litigation misconduct, ordering no costs of the trial.

The applicants moved for an interlocutory injunction to stay the Public Order Emergency Proclamation and related orders pending a judicial review application.

Before the motion was heard, the Governor in Council revoked the proclamation and all related orders.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion as moot because the legislative instruments had already been revoked, leaving no live controversy affecting the parties' rights that could be resolved by a stay.

The Court also declined to award costs to the applicants, noting their motion was unlikely to succeed even if not moot, and directed that costs be in the cause of the underlying judicial review.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 113-unit multi-residential rental building in Kingston for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed that the income approach was the best method for determining the current value, but disagreed on the appropriate capitalization rate and whether the direct comparison approach should be used as a check.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the direct comparison approach due to a lack of similar comparable properties.

After analyzing the comparable sales provided by both experts, the Board determined a base capitalization rate of 5.89%, resulting in an overall capitalization rate of 7.16% and a current value of $20,103,701.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required based on the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $18,500,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order declaring that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 43 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and that equity of the assessments was not a live issue for the hearing.

The Board found that the appellant's Statement of Issues did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 43.

However, the Board declined to declare that equity was not a live issue, noting its statutory duty under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act to consider equitable assessment.

The Board found that MPAC and the City had sufficient notice of the appellant's position through an expert report, mitigating any prejudice, and allowed equity to be raised at the hearing.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation regarding the valuation of his property.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled ZOOM hearing and requested an in-person 'Chancery' hearing, arguing he was not liable for property taxes as a 'natural person'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion due to the applicant's failure to attend and found the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and devoid of merit.

The court also imposed restrictions on the applicant's ability to commence further proceedings regarding property taxes without prior judicial permission.

The moving party, Facca Incorporated, brought a motion for leave to appeal a November 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the third party, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, payable by the moving party.

No costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff as no costs submissions were received.

The applicant sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions regarding the interpretation of a release signed to settle a human rights complaint against the police.

The HRTO had ruled that the release also covered an earlier, separate human rights complaint that was under reserve, and subsequently set aside its merits decision in that earlier complaint.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's interpretation of the release unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the factual matrix and ambiguity in the settlement documents.

The court set aside both HRTO decisions, concluding the release did not apply to the earlier complaint.

The respondents brought motions to strike the appellant's Amended Statement of Issues and Reply, arguing it was served past the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that its rules do not provide for striking pleadings.

However, because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for missing the deadline to serve its Amended Statement of Issues, it cannot raise any new issues at the hearing that were not in its original Statement of Issues or its Amended Reply.

The Amended Reply was served on time and may be relied upon.

The respondents (MPAC and the City of Cambridge) brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the appellant Toyota's excess capital and operating cost calculations for its Cambridge plant.

Toyota opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the information would be in forthcoming expert reports, that the requests lacked specificity, and that it had already disclosed significant material.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that relevance is the primary consideration and that Toyota has an ongoing obligation to disclose relevant documents in its possession.

The Board ordered production of the requested documents, except for a third-party expert report prepared for General Motors, which requires notice to GM.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court set a hearing date of August 6, 2020, by videoconference, and provided detailed directions for the filing of materials, including the use of an electronic drop box, hyperlinked factums, and compendiums.