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.
