David Gordon Fleet

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the appellant, Exchange Corporation Canada, to bring a motion for disclosure of financial information from MPAC regarding other airport roll numbers.

The order established deadlines for serving and filing the motion and responses, and set hearing dates for the motion in November 2015.

The City of Ottawa requested that a stay of the implementation of a previous Assessment Review Board decision, which granted a vacancy rebate to Walkley Self Storage Corporation, be continued pending the City's motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Board declined to continue the stay and ordered it lifted, finding that the City would not suffer substantial prejudice by paying the rebate and that the Municipal Act provides a mechanism for recovery if the rebate is ultimately found to have been paid in error.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. applied for property tax rebates under the vacancy rebate program for its steel mill in Haldimand County during periods of labour lockouts in 2009, 2010, and 2013.

The County refused the rebates, arguing that a voluntary idling of the plant due to a lockout did not qualify and that maintenance activities constituted 'use'.

The Assessment Review Board held that the reason for the vacancy does not disqualify the property from the rebate program and that the maintenance activities fell within the exemptions for 'use' under Ontario Regulation 325/01.

The Board granted the rebates for 2010 and 2013 but dismissed the 2009 claims as they did not meet the statutory requirements for periods overlapping two taxation years.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to review a decision of the Assessment Review Board that granted a vacancy rebate to the respondent for vacant units in its self-storage facility.

The City argued the Board erred in law by following a line of cases that found self-storage units eligible for the rebate, rather than another line of cases that found such units were 'inventory' occupied by the operator.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the original decision reasonably interpreted the vacancy rebate provisions of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01 in the context of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed that self-storage units fall under the definition of 'land' subject to taxation, and therefore, vacant units meeting the legislative criteria are eligible for the vacancy rebate.

The appellant, owner of a self-storage facility, applied for a vacancy tax rebate for the 2012 taxation year for self-storage units that were vacant for at least 90 consecutive days.

The City of Ottawa denied the application, arguing that the vacant units were "in use" as inventory for the self-storage business and therefore did not qualify as eligible property under section 364 of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding that the vacant units were not inventory but rather portions of real property capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

The Board held that the vacant units met all legislative criteria for the vacancy rebate program and ordered the parties to determine the rebate amount.

The appellant operated travel-related kiosks at a major airport and challenged municipal realty tax liability on the basis that its agreement with the airport authority created only a licence, not a tenancy, under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue was one of pure contractual interpretation and legal characterization, reviewable on a correctness standard, and that the agreement as a whole unambiguously created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The court further held that the appellant's leased premises did not qualify as "eligible property" under s. 331 of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the appellant could not bring the premises within any enumerated statutory category.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its rail yard.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to find a nearby rail yard was a comparable property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test and made no overriding or palpable factual error in concluding the two rail yards were not comparable due to significant differences in size, building area, and daily train traffic.

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 appellant property owner appealed the commercial vacant classification of its 31.45-acre parcel located within the urban boundary of Fort Erie.

The owner argued the lands should be classified and valued as 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act, as a local farmer had been cultivating the land since 2006.

The municipality and MPAC opposed, arguing the farming was an illegal non-conforming use and the property did not constitute 'farm lands'.

The Assessment Review Board held that the lands qualified as farm lands for the 2007-2012 taxation years, finding that actual farming use is the primary determinant for assessment purposes, regardless of zoning legality or future development potential.

The applicant, Clear Channel, held a non-exclusive licence to install and maintain advertising displays at Pearson Airport.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed Clear Channel as a taxable tenant of the Crown under section 18(1) of the Assessment Act.

Clear Channel brought an application arguing it was a licensee, not a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) retained total control over the premises and paramount occupancy, while Clear Channel merely provided a service.

The court concluded Clear Channel was not a tenant and quashed the assessments.

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'.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying a gas gate station property as industrial rather than commercial under Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The applicant argued that its primary business at the property was the distribution of natural gas and that the addition of odorant to the gas did not constitute “processing” within the meaning of the regulation.

The court held that the Board reasonably concluded that the addition of odorant constituted a significant qualitative change necessary for the gas to be legally distributed and therefore amounted to processing connected with production of a saleable product.

Applying the deferential standard applicable to leave applications under the Assessment Act, the court found no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s decision and no issue of sufficient legal importance to warrant review by the Divisional Court.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to stay a 16-day hearing before the Assessment Review Board pending an application for judicial review.

MPAC argued the Board improperly intervened by allowing the complainants to re-open their case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to raise a serious argument that exceptional circumstances justified interlocutory judicial review before the administrative process concluded.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an Assessment Review Board decision classifying their properties, which were under construction for residential condominiums, as multi-residential rather than residential for property tax purposes.

The Divisional Court found no error in the Board's interpretation that buildings under construction constitute 'vacant land' under O. Reg. 282/98, as they were not yet being used.

The Court also upheld the Board's finding that the properties were principally zoned for multi-residential development.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

Following a successful appeal regarding the interpretation of 'fee simple, if unencumbered' for property assessment purposes, the appellants (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued the claimed fees were excessive and that the appellants should have coordinated their submissions.

The court found the issues complex, the amounts at stake substantial, and no unnecessary overlap in arguments.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at $70,500 for fees and counsel fees for each appellant, plus their respective disbursements.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.

The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes in Toronto.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the statutory phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court held that the whole of the land must be assessed, and in the context of income-producing properties, 'fee simple, if unencumbered' means value calculated using market rents rather than actual rents, ensuring all interests in the land are valued.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'current value' as 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court found that the entire ownership interest, including both the landlord's and tenants' interests, must be valued, and that the 1997 amendment to the Assessment Act was intended to ensure consistency in valuation by requiring the use of market rents rather than actual rents.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.