Ian Andres

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of appraisals or opinions of value from the appellant, Home Depot.

The motion was brought significantly after the deadline for disclosure disputes set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify amending the Schedule of Events to permit the late motion.

Consequently, the motion for disclosure was denied, though the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the delay caused by the motion itself.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident.

As the parties were unable to reach a settlement, the Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 505 Balliol Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board granted participant status to a local resident and set the procedural schedule, including dates for the hearing, document exchange, and a further pre-hearing conference.

The moving party, 100 Wynford Portfolio Inc., brought a motion to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to produce third-party income, expense, and assessment information for comparable properties in relation to its property assessment appeals.

The moving party argued the information was relevant to determining fair market rents and area calculations for its commercial office building.

MPAC and the third-party property owners consented to the production subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party had complied with notice requirements, and ordered MPAC to produce the requested documents to the moving party's counsel and consultants upon execution of the undertakings.

The appellants, HLS York Developments Ltd and Metro Ontario Inc., sought leave to withdraw their property assessment appeals and to strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

MPAC had discovered that the parking garage income was substantially under-assessed and sought a 25% increase in the overall assessment.

The appellants argued that MPAC was using the Board's Rules to penalize them for appealing.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that section 44(1) of the Assessment Act permits the Board to reopen the whole question of the assessment to correct errors or omissions.

The Board concluded that MPAC's request was a bona fide attempt to correct an inadvertent error regarding the parkade's income, rather than an improper change of opinion, and that there was no prejudice to the appellants in having the appeals heard on their merits.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to produce third-party income, expense, and lease information relevant to its property assessment appeals.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars the disclosure of such information without a Board order.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to the execution of undertakings of non-disclosure by the moving party's counsel and experts.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties for a motion to compel MPAC to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC consented to the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the order, allowing service by courier or registered mail to the non-parties' legal counsel or addresses on the assessment rolls.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties for a motion to compel the production of third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent MPAC consented to the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the order, permitting service on non-parties by courier or registered mail instead of personal service.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion related to compelling MPAC to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service by courier or registered mail to the non-parties' legal counsel or their address on the assessment rolls.

The appellant in a property assessment appeal submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion sought to compel the respondent to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service on non-parties by courier or registered mail.