Donald Mitchell

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a Canadian Pacific Railway rail yard in Hamilton.

MPAC argued the Board erred in applying a Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) and in finding that CP was not in actual use and occupation of the portion of lands leased to Steelcare Inc. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on either issue, as the Board properly applied the relevant provisions of the Assessment Act and case law.

The applicants, a public hospital and its foundation, applied for a property tax exemption for the foundation's offices, arguing they shared an identity or patrimony with the hospital.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the foundation was a separate corporate entity with its own governance, objects, and funding, and did not share a sufficient identity or patrimony with the hospital to qualify for the public hospital exemption under the Assessment Act.

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, 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.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the property assessment of his home for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law and procedure, including failing to consider nuisance factors and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to raise a question of law or establish any reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, which was based on factual determinations.