Mathias Hintikka

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for disclosure in an ongoing property assessment appeal concerning a Magna manufacturing facility.

The City sought detailed financial and operational data, including manufacturing costs and equipment replacement costs, to assess functional obsolescence using the cost approach.

Magna opposed the motion, arguing the requests were disproportionate and irrelevant as it was not using a full model plant methodology.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested information relevant to the dispute over functional obsolescence and proportional to the significant valuation impact, ordering disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a large pulp and paper mill in Thunder Bay for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the cost approach to value and agreed on the reproduction cost new of the buildings and yardworks.

The Board had to determine the appropriate deductions for functional obsolescence (excess capital and operating costs), physical depreciation, and external obsolescence due to the severe decline in the pulp and paper industry.

The Board rejected the income-based return on capital method proposed by the municipality and largely adopted the modified greenfield method proposed by the appellant's expert.

The Board reduced the assessed value of the property from $72,232,000 to $32,620,000 and found no further adjustment was required for equity.