10 total
Assessment Review Board implements settlement reducing commercial property assessment to $43,650,000 for 2021-2025.
The appellant appealed the property assessment for a commercial property in Brampton for the 2021 to 2025 taxation years.
The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the classification and assessed value of the property.
The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision implementing the agreement, reducing the total assessed value from $47,996,000 to $43,650,000 and confirming the classification split between Commercial (Excess Land) and Commercial (Full).
Property assessment appeal allowed in part; 2016 current value determined using Income Approach at $49,600,000.
The appellant appealed the 2021 supplementary assessment and 2022 annual assessment of a newly constructed warehouse/sorting centre in Brampton.
The Board determined the appropriate valuation methodology was the Income Approach.
The Board found the correct capitalization rate to be 5.2%, resulting in a 2016 current value of $49,600,000.
Applying an agreed 12% equity reduction, the equitable assessment was determined to be $43,650,000.
The Board also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of late-filed documents and the credibility of MPAC's expert witness, finding no cumulative failure to adhere to professional standards.
Motion for disclosure of construction costs granted; documents found relevant and request proportionate.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of actual construction costs and related documents from Amazon Inc. regarding a newly built distribution centre.
Amazon opposed the motion, arguing the request was disproportionate and the information irrelevant.
The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed construction costs and that the request was proportionate given the size and complexity of the property.
The Board ordered Amazon to disclose the requested documents.
Vacancy rebate appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to provide required supporting documentation.
The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's decision to decline its vacancy rebate application for the 2017 taxation year.
The City declined the application because the applicant failed to provide required supporting documentation within the prescribed 30-day time limit after receiving an incomplete notice.
The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient information for the City to make a decision and failed to cooperate with the City's request for documentation.
The appeal was dismissed, and no vacancy rebate was owed.
Late property assessment appeals accepted where commercial tenant did not receive timely notice from landlords.
The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought an order under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure to accept property assessment appeals filed after the statutory deadline.
The tenant did not receive the assessment notices from its landlords until months after the deadline, despite statutory requirements under the Assessment Act.
The Board found that the tenant was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it in time, and filed the appeals within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.
The motion was granted and the late appeals were accepted.
Motion for disclosure of confidential property assessment information granted for similar pharmaceutical properties but denied for non-pharmaceutical properties.
The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.
The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.
The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.
The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.
Leave to appeal property assessment denied; quantification of economic obsolescence is a question of fact.
The City of Dryden sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the municipal assessment of a pulp mill owned by Domtar Inc. The City argued the Board erred in law by applying a 51.7% deduction for economic obsolescence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the quantification of economic obsolescence is a question of fact, not law, and that the potential tax impact on the municipality's ratepayers did not raise an important question of law meriting the court's attention.
Procedural order issued setting timetable for discovery and mediation in property assessment appeal.
The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for discovery, production, and mediation in a property assessment appeal concerning properties in the City of Markham.
The order sets deadlines for production requests and responses, and schedules an alternative dispute resolution session prior to the hearing.
Property tax exemption under the YMCA Act does not apply to leased premises.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a property tax exemption for premises it leases in four buildings.
The appellant argued that section 10 of the YMCA Act, which exempts 'buildings, lands... of the said association', should be interpreted broadly to include leased premises.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a leasehold interest is not 'land' or 'property of' the association within the meaning of the Assessment Act and the YMCA Act.
The exemption requires an ownership interest, and the plain meaning of the statute does not extend to leased properties.
Commercial landlord's allocation of property tax shortfalls among tenants under the Municipal Act is not a statutory power of decision.
The appellant tenant appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitration award regarding the allocation of property tax shortfalls.
The landlord had sought to recover a tax shortfall from some, but not all, eligible tenants under the Municipal Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the landlord was not exercising a statutory power of decision, but rather acting within the permissive statutory framework that allowed, but did not require, the recovery of shortfalls from all eligible tenants.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the landlord's right to allocate the shortfall as it did.
