Jeff G. 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.

Wal-Mart brought a motion to file an additional expert report on fair market rent after the deadline in the Schedule of Events had passed.

The report had been prepared by MPAC for a different property.

Wal-Mart argued that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the late filing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances and noting that admitting the late report would cause significant prejudice to the other parties by requiring further expert testimony and delaying the scheduled hearing.

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 applicant First Nation sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Exploration granting a mining exploration permit to a corporate respondent on lands within the applicant's traditional territory.

The applicant argued the Crown failed to properly discharge its duty to consult.

The Divisional Court found that the Crown and its delegate had created clear expectations for a community meeting and a Memorandum of Understanding, but abruptly changed course without explanation to expedite the permit for commercial reasons.

The court held that the consultation process lacked genuine engagement and failed to maintain the honour of the Crown.

The application was granted, the permit was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adequate consultation.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal bylaw that exempted agricultural vehicles from heavy vehicle restrictions on a local ferry.

The applicants argued the municipal council improperly fettered its discretion and acted under a misapprehension of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the council had the jurisdiction to ease the restrictions it previously imposed, did not fetter its discretion, and the bylaw was not void for vagueness.

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 parties brought competing applications seeking the court’s direction regarding the interpretation of provisions in a commercial lease governing the determination of fair market land value for rent recalculation.

The lease required each party to appoint an appraiser and, if the resulting valuations differed by more than ten percent, for the two appraisers to jointly select a third appraiser.

After conflicting valuations triggered the third-appraiser mechanism, the tenant proposed altering the process to appoint a legally trained decision-maker who was not a licensed appraiser.

The court held that the lease clearly required the appointment of a qualified appraiser experienced in valuing commercial property in Toronto and that the proposed alternative would improperly amend the agreement without the landlord’s consent.

The court therefore directed that the previously identified qualified appraiser be appointed to proceed with the appraisal process.

The appellant association appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles (DDT) fixing the southern waterfront boundaries of two lots on a registered plan of subdivision at the water's edge instead of the 'high water mark' shown on the plan.

The appellant argued the DDT exceeded her jurisdiction and that her decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the DDT reasonably interpreted her jurisdiction under the Boundaries Act to determine the true intention of the original subdivider.

The Court held that the DDT's conclusion that the subdivider intended to convey all the land he owned to the water's edge, but mistakenly believed the Crown owned the land between the high water mark and the water's edge, was supported by the evidence and reasonable.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.

The applicants appealed the assessment of numerous commercial investment properties, arguing they should be assessed in the farm property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Tribunal stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the phrase 'land is owned by' in s. 8(2)3 of the regulation includes both beneficial and legal ownership.

The Divisional Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase is restricted to legal ownership, relying on the presumption of consistent expression and the presumption against tautology within the legislative scheme.

The Township of Tiny appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles under the Boundaries Act, which confirmed the westerly boundary of a beachfront cottage lot to be the water's edge of Lake Huron.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Director's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the commercial reality of the original subdivision plan, which intended to reserve the beach for the use of back lot owners and the public.

The appeal was allowed, and the boundaries were confirmed as depicted on the original Plan of Subdivision, which set the boundary at a monumented straight line inland from the water's edge.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to stay a 16-day hearing before the Assessment Review Board pending an application for judicial review.

MPAC argued the Board improperly intervened by allowing the complainants to re-open their case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to raise a serious argument that exceptional circumstances justified interlocutory judicial review before the administrative process concluded.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

The appellant appealed a declaration that he had no right, title, or interest in residential buildings located on lands owned by the respondents.

The appellant relied on purported bills of sale and rental leases, which the application judge found invalid.

On appeal, the appellant alternatively argued for a month-to-month tenancy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the application judge's findings and no evidence to support a tenancy of any kind.

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.