5 total
Motion for leave to appeal Assessment Review Board decisions granted without reasons.
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.
Motion for disclosure in property assessment appeal granted in part based on relevance and proportionality.
The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the property owner and MPAC in an assessment appeal concerning a casino property.
The Owner opposed the motion, arguing it was out of time and seeking dismissal of the appeals.
The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely and declined to address the Owner's dismissal request on a disclosure motion.
Applying the test of relevance and proportionality, the Board ordered the Owner to disclose lease information, valuation analyses for the 2016 base year, and construction costs for the five years preceding the valuation date.
The Board declined to order MPAC to disclose certain documents protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act because the City had not provided the requisite statutory notice to affected third parties.
Board rules on cross-motions for disclosure in casino property assessment appeal, applying relevance and proportionality.
In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.
The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.
The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.
The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.
The value of an Environmental Compliance Approval must be reflected in a landfill's property assessment.
The parties stated a question of law to the Assessment Review Board regarding whether the market value of the rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site for property assessment purposes.
The Board held that the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Restfulcare applies to landfills, meaning that where lands have an inherent capacity for a certain use and a government approval authorizes that use, the value of the approval is a component part of the value of the land.
Consequently, the Board concluded that the market value of the rights associated with the ECA must be reflected in the current value of the landfill site.
Motion for stated case dismissed; Board must answer valuation question itself rather than deferring to court.
The moving parties brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board state a case to the Divisional Court under section 43(1) of the Assessment Act.
The proposed question asked whether the market value of rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the question was either a mixed question of fact and law or a question of law that would attract deference on a reasonableness standard.
The Board concluded that specialized tribunals should not bypass their statutory role by referring questions to the court that the tribunal is expected to answer itself, even when all parties consent.
