David Gordon Fleet

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to quash a new construction notice and recalculated property tax bills issued by the respondent municipality.

The municipality had failed to issue the notice within the 60-day period prescribed by s. 331(9) of the Municipal Act, 2001, delaying the billing by several years due to software limitations.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's finding that the word 'shall' in s. 331(9) is directory, not mandatory.

A mandatory interpretation would frustrate the statutory purpose of taxing comparable properties equally and grant the appellant a perpetual tax holiday, whereas a directory interpretation fulfilled the legislative intent without causing significant prejudice.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the interpretation of property class regulations.

The moving party argued the ARB ignored the clear wording of the regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision, as the ARB properly applied a teleological approach to statutory interpretation consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The appellant acquired an existing hotel and spent $39 million to gut and redevelop it, leaving only the structural elements intact.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation increased the property's current value assessment, treating the redevelopment as an 'alteration, enlargement or improvement' under the Municipal Act rather than the 'erection' of a new building.

The appellant appealed, arguing the retrofit should be considered an 'erection' to benefit from a statutory cap on property taxes for new properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that based on the ordinary meaning of the words and the appellant's own characterization of the project for building permit purposes, the retrofit was an alteration and not the erection of a building.

A stated case was brought before the Divisional Court regarding whether a municipality's Property Negotiator/Appraiser had the authority to file assessment complaints without prior specific authorization from the Municipal Council.

The Court held that while the act of filing the complaint was purely administrative and authorized by by-law, the decision to pursue the appeal required authorization or ratification by Council within a reasonable time.

Because the Council's resolution attempted to delegate the decision-making power rather than ratify the administrative action, the Court found the process deficient and concluded there were no valid complaints before the Assessment Review Board.

The appellants, anchor tenants in shopping centres, challenged the constitutionality of shortfall recovery provisions in the Municipal Act.

These provisions allowed commercial landlords to recoup property tax shortfalls from tenants.

The appellants argued this constituted indirect taxation, which is ultra vires the Province under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions merely regulate the pre-existing transferability of a true land tax, which remains a valid direct tax.