4 total
Registration of a condominium plan creates new parcels of land subject to omitted assessment under the Assessment Act.
The appellant developer constructed three apartment towers and subsequently registered a condominium plan converting two towers into 330 condominium units.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) issued an omitted assessment for the original property, and later issued 331 omitted assessments for the newly created condo units and the remaining multi-residential tower.
The appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, arguing MPAC lacked authority under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act because the physical land had already been assessed.
The Board upheld the assessments, finding the condominium registration created new legal parcels of land.
The Divisional Court dismissed the developer's appeal, holding that the Board correctly interpreted 'land' and did not breach procedural fairness.
Judicial review of Assessment Review Board decision denying municipal tax refund dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.
The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.
The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.
Leave to appeal granted to review MPAC's authority to issue multiple omitted assessments under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act.
The moving party, a property developer, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board regarding the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) authority to issue multiple omitted assessments under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act in the same taxation year following a condominium conversion.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on five alleged errors of law, including the interpretation of 'land', the failure to consider whether taxes had already been levied, and the failure to address MPAC's intentionality.
The court also found the issues raised important questions of law meriting appellate review.
Property tax exemption denied because the non-profit housing provider did not fund or manage the relief itself.
The applicant, a non-profit housing corporation providing affordable and rent-geared-to-income housing, sought a declaration that its three properties were exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.
The respondents conceded the applicant served the poor but argued it was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' as required by the exemption.
Applying binding appellate authority, the court found that because the applicant's operations were fully funded by government subsidies and tenant rents, and its day-to-day management was outsourced to a for-profit entity, it did not provide relief through its own endeavors or funds.
The application was dismissed.
