Jeff Cowan

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously appealed the 2022 and 2023 taxation years, which were resolved via minutes of settlement signed by the appellant's paralegal representative.

The appellant argued that the paralegal lacked authority to accept the settlement and that the settlement was fraudulent or unconscionable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the prior decisions were final and involved the same parties and issues.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse issue estoppel, finding no evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or that the municipality knew of any limitation on the paralegal's authority.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision and interim decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving parties' factum.

Consistent with the court's usual practice, no reasons were provided for the leave decision.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting leave to file reply evidence regarding equity issues raised by the appellant, Shoppers Drug Mart.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found the reply evidence necessary and appropriate, granting MPAC until January 8, 2021, to serve and file its reply evidence and amending the Schedule of Events accordingly.

The appellants requested an order requiring MPAC to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The moving parties appealed the assessment of a shopping development and failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

They brought a motion to extend the time to serve their Statement of Issues, citing ongoing discussions with MPAC and the pending issuance of supplementary assessments as reasons for the delay.

MPAC consented to the extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the confluence of substantial property changes, pending supplementary assessments, and communication errors constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

Finding no prejudice to any party, the Board granted the extension and set a new commencement date.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

The County of Wellington and the Township of Puslinch brought a motion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for bringing appeals for four properties, arguing they were improperly classified as farm or residential when they were used for aggregate extraction.

The Assessment Review Board found that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll, as the errors were inadvertent and mischaracterized the fundamental use of the properties.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for appeals, finding that the municipalities had the necessary information to appeal in a timely manner but failed to do so, and that altering the historical tax liability would be highly prejudicial to the taxpayers.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.

The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes in Toronto.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the statutory phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court held that the whole of the land must be assessed, and in the context of income-producing properties, 'fee simple, if unencumbered' means value calculated using market rents rather than actual rents, ensuring all interests in the land are valued.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'current value' as 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court found that the entire ownership interest, including both the landlord's and tenants' interests, must be valued, and that the 1997 amendment to the Assessment Act was intended to ensure consistency in valuation by requiring the use of market rents rather than actual rents.

The appellant owns a former cruise ship, the Jadran, which operates as a floating restaurant berthed in Lake Ontario.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed the ship as a 'structure' and the lakebed it occupies as 'land' for taxation purposes.

The appellant appealed the application judge's decision upholding the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the ship is a structure, that it occupies land owned by the Port Authority, and that the appellant is in possession of that land.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.