Donald Gregory Mitchell

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020-2025 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing the 2016 current value assessment was already settled in prior appeals.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to determine if the statutory basis for MPAC's subsequent assessment changes altered the valuation day, which left the Board unable to conclude whether the same question was being raised or if the prior decisions were final for these purposes.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2025 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant had previously withdrawn appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years following an agreement with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior appeals were withdrawn without a final Board decision.

The Board also held that the current appeals were not an abuse of process, as allowing them to proceed would not offend judicial economy, consistency, or finality.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that physical alterations and the loss of an anchor tenant constituted changes under s. 34 of the Assessment Act, resulting in a different valuation day and a different question to be decided.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed MPAC's motion, finding it premature to determine issue estoppel and abuse of process at the interim stage without further evidence regarding the statutory basis for the changes in the assessed values.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that applied issue estoppel to dismiss their property tax assessment appeals.

The applicants attempted to re-open the 2016 valuation of their land based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their profitability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent market changes to business results do not constitute a change in the 'state and condition' of the land and are not a valid basis to re-open an assessment.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a newly constructed office complex in Toronto, arguing that the partial assessment of the property at 80% of its full value was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient convincing evidence that the comparison properties were at the same stage of development as the subject property on the valuation date.

The Board also rejected the appellants' expert's reliance on only a portion of the assessed values of mixed-use comparison properties.

The appeal for an equitable reduction was dismissed.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The requesting parties sought an order for MPAC to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal, pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and while four objected, only one provided submissions, which the Board found did not justify withholding disclosure.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The appellants argued that the value of the subject property, a shopping mall, should be reduced due to the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its 'state and condition'.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the 'state and condition' paradigm, adopting previous jurisprudence that the Assessment Act provides for a single valuation day (January 1, 2016) for the taxation years in question.

The Board found that the issue of the property's current value as of January 1, 2016, had already been finally decided between the same parties in a previous settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.

Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.

The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.

However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.

Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.

The City of Hamilton requested an order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties.

Nine owners did not object, while two objected.

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents for the nine unopposed properties and granted the two opposing owners two weeks to provide written submissions regarding their objections.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

This property tax assessment appeal concerned the current value and classification of a sports complex for the 2013 to 2022 taxation years.

The tribunal accepted the respondent assessment authority’s comparable-sales land valuation evidence and ACS-based cost approach for the building, rejecting the appellant’s reliance on land tables, actual construction cost evidence, and a lower arena-additive rating.

On classification, the tribunal held that the Sports Club Exception in the General Regulation applies only to legal ownership, not beneficial ownership asserted through trust arrangements.

The property therefore remained in the Commercial Property Class from November 1, 2013 onward, and the assessed values were increased for the land in accordance with the respondent’s evidence.

The appellant, a Crown tenant at Pearson Airport, appealed the property tax assessments for two aircraft hangars for the 2013-2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach for valuation but disputed the Replacement Cost New and depreciation rate for the asphalt aircraft aprons.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent MPAC's use of the RS Means costing manual and a 1% depreciation rate, finding that aircraft aprons require specialized construction and constant maintenance compared to standard commercial asphalt surfaces.

The assessed values determined by MPAC were upheld.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of its whiskey distillery, arguing that the warehouse portion should be classified in the commercial property class rather than the industrial property class.

The appellant contended that the warehouse was used exclusively for storage purposes under section 5(2)(b) of Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the warehouse was used for barrel aging whiskey, which is an active part of the manufacturing process that changes the nature and quality of the alcohol.

Therefore, the warehouse was not used exclusively for storage purposes and was properly classified in the industrial property class.

Several property owners and tenants applied for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, arguing that COVID-19 pandemic restrictions 'damaged' their income-producing properties by rendering them substantially unusable.

The Assessment Review Board held a motion to determine the preliminary legal interpretation of the provision.

The Board found that the word 'damage' in the statute requires physical damage to a building, applying the ejusdem generis maxim to restrict the phrase 'or otherwise' to physical causes like the listed 'fire' and 'demolition'.

The Board concluded that 'damage' does not include 'legislative damage' caused by government restrictions on business operations.

The requesting party, Morguard Realty Holdings Inc., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, four of whom objected on grounds of commercial sensitivity and relevance.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding that the legal obligation to use the information only for the appeal and the requirement to execute a non-disclosure agreement provided sufficient protection for the third parties' commercially sensitive information.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to preclude the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value of the property had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.