6 total
Motion for leave to appeal Assessment Review Board decision granted.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.
Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if tribunal rules deeming consent conflict with the SPPA.
The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding an increase in the assessed value of its property.
The Board had previously increased the property's value based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, without the applicant's participation, relying on a rule that deemed non-responsive parties to not oppose settlements.
The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board erred in disposing of the proceeding without a hearing in the absence of the consent of all statutory parties, finding a potential conflict between the Board's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if ARB Rule 39 conflicts with SPPA s. 4.1 regarding deemed consent.
The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that increased the assessed value of its property.
The Board had disposed of the matter based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, relying on ARB Rule 39 which deemed the non-participating applicant to have consented.
The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether ARB Rule 39 conflicts with s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which requires the consent of all parties to dispose of a proceeding without a hearing.
Motion to dismiss assessment appeals denied; City properly delegated appeal authority and owner failed to respond.
The property owner brought a motion to dismiss the City of Ottawa's property assessment appeals, arguing the City failed to obtain municipal council ratification for the appeals and requesting the Board reject Minutes of Settlement entered into by the City and MPAC.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the City had properly delegated authority to file appeals under section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the owner to file a Statement of Response, noting the owner had been properly served but failed to participate in the proceedings.
Board confirms assessment settlement where owner failed to respond to appeal notices due to internal mismanagement.
The City of Ottawa appealed the property assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement.
The Board issued decisions based on the settlement.
The owner later requested a review, claiming it never received notice of the appeal.
The Board initiated a review but found that the owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own administrative mismanagement.
The Board confirmed its previous decisions, holding that the owner was deemed not to oppose the settlement under Rule 39.
The Board also allowed the owner's late-filed 2020 appeal due to the COVID-19 suspension of limitation periods.
Board confirms assessment settlement decisions, finding owner's failure to respond was due to its own carelessness.
The City of Ottawa appealed the assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The Owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement, which the Board issued as decisions for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.
The Owner sought to set aside the decisions, claiming it did not receive notice of the appeals.
The Board initiated a review of the decisions.
The Board found that the Owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own carelessness.
The Board held that the deeming provision in Rule 39 (deemed consent to settlement if no response is filed) is absolute and within the Board's jurisdiction to impose.
The Board confirmed the decisions but allowed the Owner's late-filed 2020 appeal to proceed because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20.
