Grant Uba

The City of Hamilton appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of a steel manufacturing property owned by Stelco Inc. The sole issue was the current value of 411.6 acres of unused residual lands.

MPAC assessed the lands at a nominal value of $100 per acre due to the likelihood of environmental contamination and lack of market interest, while the City argued for a value of $125,000 per acre based on comparable sales of uncontaminated industrial lands.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence that the lands were unmarketable due to contamination concerns and confirmed the nominal assessment value.

The claimants brought a motion to compel a City witness to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer questions regarding a compensation policy and a jointly retained appraiser's report.

The claimants sought compensation for injurious affection allegedly caused by the City's adjacent landfill operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appraisal report and related communications were created for the purpose of settlement negotiations and were therefore inadmissible under the doctrine of settlement privilege pursuant to section 15(2)(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed reassessments under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act for reporting periods between December 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011.

The core issue was the proper valuation methodology to determine the fair market value of leased apartments registered as condominium units in a residential complex subject to the self-supply rules in section 191 of the Excise Tax Act.

The appellant self-assessed GST/HST based on the fair market value of the entire building using a cost plus 6% method.

The Minister reassessed the appellant based on the fair market value determined using the direct comparison method applied to the individual condominium units.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reporting periods between December 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, finding that the direct comparison method was the most appropriate method to determine the value of the condominium units and that the Minister's appraiser selected appropriate comparables and made appropriate adjustments.

The plaintiffs, two lienholders, brought a motion opposing the confirmation of a Master's Report which found that the defendant mortgagees had priority over their construction liens under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The Master had awarded the mortgagees all proceeds from the receivership sale of the contaminated property.

The Superior Court confirmed the Master's finding that the mortgagees had priority for the funds advanced under the vendor take-back mortgage.

However, the Court set aside the portion of the Report granting the mortgagees priority for additional fees, charges, and expenses not directly related to the sale, allowing the lienholders access to the remaining funds to satisfy their liens.

Two unpaid construction lien claimants sought priority over a first mortgagee holding a $6.5 million vendor take-back (VTB) mortgage on a contaminated commercial property.

The court had to determine the actual value of the property on the date the first lien arose and whether the VTB constituted an 'advance' under section 78(3) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court found that the actual value of the property was at least $6.5 million, relying on arm's length offers rather than the lien claimants' expert opinion, and held that a VTB mortgage is an advance equivalent to an institutional mortgage.

Consequently, the mortgagee's interest took priority over the lien claimants.

The plaintiff, Frederick Fischer, moved for summary judgment against the vendor and real estate agents involved in his purchase of a property previously used as a marijuana grow operation, a latent defect not disclosed to him.

He alleged fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial, including whether the buyer's agent knew about the grow-op, the source of information provided to the buyer, and the extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff, particularly regarding the property's marketability and mold remediation costs.

The court also granted leave for the plaintiff to amend his claim to explicitly include negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The appellant challenged the award of disturbance damages for pre-expropriation business losses and the Board's refusal to reduce the property's market value due to environmental contaminants.

The respondents cross-appealed the Board's refusal to award interest on the disturbance damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the law regarding disturbance damages and reasonably concluded that the environmental contaminants did not reduce the property's market value.

The Court also upheld the refusal to award interest on disturbance damages, as it is not provided for in the Act.

The appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error in the business loss calculation.