Ian Daniel Andres

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, Mississauga Complex Portfolio Inc., brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of third-party properties.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income, expense, rent roll, lease information, and other valuation documents for the specified properties.

The production was made subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the appellant's legal counsel and expert consultants.

The appeals were adjourned to a prehearing conference.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of a property in Mississauga.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income, expense, rent roll, lease information, and other documents for specified third-party properties, subject to the appellant's counsel and consultants executing undertakings of confidentiality and non-disclosure.

The appeals were adjourned to a prehearing conference.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of documents relating to the assessment of several third-party properties.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to produce the requested income, expense, lease, and valuation information, subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the appellant's counsel and consultants.

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.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Chair dismissing their Request for Review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had approved an Official Plan amendment allowing residential development on lands, parts of which were designated as a cultural heritage landscape.

The moving party argued the OMB erred by not giving deference to the factual findings of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) regarding the extent of the heritage landscape, raising issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no question of law, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB decision, and that the matter was not of sufficient general importance.

The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.

The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law repealing a heritage designation affecting its hotel property and sought related relief concerning heritage property tax rebates.

The municipality had approved demolition of the original designated heritage building in 1996 but did not repeal the designation by-law until 2012, when it enacted a repealing by-law retroactive to the demolition approval date pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant alleged illegality and bad faith, arguing that the municipality failed to provide prior notice and enacted the repeal retroactively to defeat its tax rebate claims.

The court held that prior notice was not required where the Act mandated repeal following approval of demolition, and that the retroactive repeal was a reasonable step to comply belatedly with statutory requirements.

The applicant failed to establish bad faith or illegality, and further failed to meet additional eligibility criteria for the heritage tax rebate program.