Donald Gregory Mitchell

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 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 self-represented applicant requested a third adjournment of her judicial review application and motion for leave to appeal due to health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory hearing date, but ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs thrown away to the respondent within 30 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The property owners sought leave to appeal an amended decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding omitted property assessments for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 taxation years following home renovations.

The owners argued the Board erred in law by allowing the omitted assessments, claiming the issues were barred by issue estoppel and res judicata.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion that the omitted assessments were properly returned for the additional square footage was a determination of fact, not a question of law as required by section 43.1(1) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its commercial property was an 'eligible property' under s. 447.34.1 of the Municipal Act.

The property had been subject to a frozen assessment listing, and a notice of supplementary assessment triggered s. 447.10.

The Court of Appeal held that the property met the definition of 'eligible property' because s. 447.10(2) applied to determine the final assessment after improvements were made.

The appeal was allowed, and the municipality was ordered to determine the total assessment for the property as an eligible property.

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.

The appellant appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the assessment of its commercial office building, arguing the Board failed to consider the assessed value of similar lands in the vicinity as required by s. 44(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court held that while s. 44(2) mandates consideration of similar properties' assessments, the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of such assessments before the Board.

Due to the inadequate evidentiary record, the appeal was dismissed.