D. Fleet

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.