David Gordon Fleet

The appellant, a religious organization, appealed a decision affirming that its properties, primarily used for tai chi classes, were not exempt from property tax as "places of worship" under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the tai chi classes, while integral to the organization's religion, were not primarily "worship" from the perspective of the participants, and that a contemplative garden and sales area were also not tax-exempt.

The court emphasized an objective "primary purpose" test for tax exemptions, considering the intentions of participants, not solely the organizers.

The appellants sought property tax relief for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that demolition and renovations prevented the use of their property as a warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2021 appeal, finding that the demolition and renovations did not occur during the 2021 taxation year or the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, which is a statutory requirement for relief.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g) but upheld the Town's calculation of the tax refund using the cost to cure approach, dismissing the appeal to vary the quantum.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding a feed mill and grain silos.

The Assessment Review Board applied the framework from a recent decision, finding that assessing unusable portions of the feed mill as fully operational and assessing eight non-existent silos constituted palpable errors.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the prejudice to the property owner and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants, a religious organization, appealed a decision denying property tax exemptions for certain properties under the Assessment Act.

The properties included portions of a temple site and several satellite sites used for Tai Chi classes.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the primary purpose of the satellite sites was not worship, but rather evangelization or physical health, and that the specific temple areas (sales area, campground, contemplative garden) did not qualify as places of worship.

The appeal was dismissed.

The property owner brought two motions in an assessment appeal initiated by the municipality.

The first motion sought to dismiss the municipality's appeals, arguing that the municipality's failure to provide expert evidence constituted an abuse of process and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

The Board dismissed this motion, finding no requirement in the rules to call expert witnesses and no abuse of process.

The second motion sought to constrain MPAC from seeking an assessment higher than returned on the roll, and requested permission to video record the hearing.

The Board held that MPAC is entitled to seek a higher assessment, but constrained MPAC from relying on its second and third Statements of Response and expert reports because they were served late without exceptional circumstances.

The request to record the hearing was dismissed due to deficiencies in the application, with leave to renew at the hearing.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2005 to 2015 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll.

Following a merger on title, MPAC inadvertently continued to assess a newly constructed KFC building on both the subject property and the adjacent plaza property, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the double assessment constituted a palpable error of conspicuous magnitude.

Given the significant prejudice to the taxpayer and the consent of both MPAC and the City of Hamilton, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing the appeals and directed MPAC to be the appellant.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their distribution centre.

MPAC subsequently gave notice that it was seeking to increase the current value assessment.

The appellants brought a motion to constrain MPAC from seeking an increase beyond the value returned on the roll, arguing lack of authority, unfairness, and failure to follow the Board's rules.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 44(3) of the Assessment Act mandates the Board to determine the correct current value starting fresh, and that appellants bear the risk of an increased assessment when they appeal.

The Board also found no prejudice resulting from procedural delays.

The appellants appealed property assessments under the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act.

The parties requested procedural orders to alter the timelines and revert the appeals to the general stream Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the revised requests on consent, extending the timelines for expert reports and scheduling a settlement conference.

The Municipal Act applications were dismissed on consent.

IKEA brought a motion to dismiss the City of Toronto's property assessment appeals, arguing that the City's expert report improperly relied on confidential information from other proceedings, amounting to an abuse of process.

Alternatively, IKEA sought to postpone the appeals or obtain documentary disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expert's initial inclusion of the contested references was a mere oversight that had been corrected, which did not meet the threshold for abuse of process.

The Board also declined to postpone the appeals or order disclosure, but granted IKEA an extension of time to serve its responding expert report.

The moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of an appeal regarding a tax refund under subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the interpretation of statutory time limits is a question of statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board found that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to extend the 35-day deadline, as it had not done so expressly in the legislation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked the authority to extend the timeline and dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision determining the property tax vacancy rebates owed to U.S. Steel Canada Inc. by Haldimand County for the 2010 and 2013 taxation years.

Following an interim decision establishing eligibility, the Board quantified the rebates for the Main Plant and Pickling Plant.

The Board also determined the interest commencement date under section 364(20) of the Municipal Act, 2001, finding that the application was complete by October 20, 2014, when evidentiary requirements were met, making the interest commencement date February 22, 2015.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board granting vacancy property tax rebates to the respondent steel company for periods during which the respondent had locked out its employees.

The appellant argued that maintaining the plant in a production-ready state during a labour dispute constituted 'use' of the facility, disqualifying it from the rebate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of the Municipal Act and Regulation 325/01 to be reasonable.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the reason for the vacancy was irrelevant and that the maintenance activities fell within the permitted exemptions for upkeep.

The Corporation of Haldimand County sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that granted U.S. Steel Canada Inc. vacancy tax rebates for periods during which it had locked out its unionized employees.

The Board had found that the maintenance activities conducted during the lockouts did not constitute 'use' of the property under Ontario Regulation 325/01.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's statutory interpretation of 'use' and 'vacant property' in the context of a voluntary lockout, and that the issue was of sufficient public importance to warrant appellate review.

The moving party, Exchange Corporation Canada Inc., brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of Terminal T1 New at Pearson Airport.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and rental analyses used to determine the 2003, 2005, and 2008 base year current value assessments for the 2004-2011 taxation years.

The production was made subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings by legal counsel and consultants, with an exception for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The moving parties, various car rental companies, brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board regarding the production of documents by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered MPAC to produce income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and rental analyses used to determine the base year current value assessments for the 2004-2011 taxation years.

The production was conditional upon the receipt of executed confidentiality undertakings from legal counsel and consultants, except for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The Board also scheduled a further prehearing event by telephone conference.

The moving parties brought a motion for the production of confidential information from MPAC, including income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, and operating statements used to determine base year current value assessments.

The Assessment Review Board issued a consent order requiring MPAC to produce the requested information subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings by the moving parties' counsel and consultants.

The order specified the manner of production and scheduled a further prehearing event.

The applicant car rental companies brought a motion for disclosure of confidential financial information received from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and other tenants.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the motion and permitting alternative methods of service on non-parties.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference call to review the status of appeals and confirm dates for a production motion hearing.

The appellant requested a variation of a previous procedural order regarding the service requirements for motion materials on non-parties.

With no objections from the other parties, the Board amended the previous order to allow the appellant to serve all other assessed persons by registered mail to their last known mailing address provided by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board held an emergency pre-hearing conference call to address a request by Exchange Corporation Canada (ECC) to vary a previous procedural order regarding production motions for airport tenant appellants.

The Board agreed to vary the order to align the dates with those provided for other appeals, setting deadlines for serving and filing motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.