Jared Wehrle

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large-format retail food store in Toronto for the 2013-2025 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property based on a highest and best use (HABU) as a mixed-use redevelopment site, resulting in significantly higher values.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to prove a reasonable probability of rezoning within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation dates, noting the lack of a precinct plan and compatibility issues with a nearby sugar refinery.

The Board concluded the HABU was the property's current use and reduced the assessments to $28,731,000 for the 2012 base year and $43,260,000 for the 2016 base year, using the cost approach.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the moving party was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to each of the responding parties.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for 835 and 839 Yonge Street.

Following an interim decision that increased the current value of the property to $106,262,000, the parties agreed on the apportionment of this value between the relevant roll numbers.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the agreed-upon apportionment.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Canadian Tire retail store and gas bar in Toronto for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed the current use was not the highest and best use (HABU), but disagreed on the appropriate degree of redevelopment.

The appellant argued the HABU should be based on as-of-right zoning, valuing the property at $30,000,000.

The respondent MPAC argued the HABU was a mixed-use development with a higher density requiring rezoning, valuing the property at over $110,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that a rezoning to permit a Floor Space Index of 6.5 was reasonably probable, satisfying the legal permissibility test.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $106,262,000 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equitable reduction.

Following a case management teleconference, the court issued directions regarding two related applications brought by the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto against Ontario concerning the demolition of heritage buildings.

Toronto sought an order requiring Ontario to produce a 'record of decision' prior to the hearing, arguing that the demolition involved a statutory power of decision.

The case management judge deferred this issue to the panel hearing the applications, noting that the panel could draw appropriate inferences or order further disclosure if necessary.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to stop the demolition of four industrial buildings with heritage designations under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court found that the respondents likely began demolition by mistake, failing to comply with the Heritage Act and a subdivision agreement with the City of Toronto.

The court granted an interim order of prohibition under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prevent the destruction of the buildings pending the final determination of the application by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board for a refund of property taxes paid for the 2017 taxation year, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant, who receives ODSP benefits and suffers from multiple illnesses, demonstrated that his monthly expenses exceeded his income and that he had no net income after basic liabilities.

The Board found that although the applicant had paid his taxes, doing so left him unable to provide for the basic necessities of life.

The Board concluded the applicant was unable to pay his taxes due to sickness and extreme poverty, and ordered a full refund of the $2,325 paid for 2017.

The son of a deceased property owner applied for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 on behalf of his mother and the estate of his late father, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion challenging the estate's eligibility to apply.

The Assessment Review Board held that an estate is not a 'person' under the Act and therefore cannot apply for tax relief.

The Board further held that eligibility for tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty ends upon death, as a deceased person has no necessities of living.

The application was amended to proceed with the mother as the sole applicant.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down several medical cannabis dispensaries operating in violation of its zoning by-laws.

The dispensary operators brought a cross-motion seeking an interlocutory exemption from the by-laws and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the existing regulatory scheme failed to provide reasonable access to medical cannabis.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the City, as there is a presumption that validly enacted laws serve the public interest.

The court granted the City's injunction but declined to issue an order directing police enforcement, noting the lack of statutory authority for such an order in a civil proceeding.

The operators' cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the City met most of the test for an extension, the proposed appeal was patently without merit.

The underlying decision was interlocutory, and there is an absolute prohibition against appealing interlocutory decisions of the Small Claims Court.

The Applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2013 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant was unable to work due to sickness, it found that she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted significant unexplained bank deposits, questionable bank statements, and non-essential expenditures, concluding that the Applicant's financial situation did not warrant tax relief.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an 81-year-old widow sponsored to Canada by her grandson, applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2014 and 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted that the applicant owned her home outright with $280,000 in equity, which she had not attempted to leverage, and that her property taxes had in fact been paid by family members.

The applications were dismissed.