Karey Lunau

The City of Brockville brought a motion for an order extending the time to appeal the 2003 through 2012 property assessments of its wastewater treatment facility, alleging a palpable error in the building's recorded height.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while section 40.1 of the Assessment Act allows for the correction of palpable errors without a limitation period, the moving party failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that the error existed for the taxation years in question.

The Board also noted that it lacks the jurisdiction to apply the equitable doctrine of laches.

The appellants appealed the property assessment, arguing that the subject property, previously used by a religious order for kitchen and laundry facilities, should be classified in the new multi-residential property class.

This classification requires that the property was converted from a non-residential use.

The Assessment Review Board found that the historic use of the property by the religious order was residential in nature, as it served the residents of the connected buildings.

Therefore, the property did not meet the statutory requirement of conversion from a non-residential use, and the multi-residential classification was confirmed.

The applicant, a not-for-profit corporation providing short-term accommodation and transportation to First Nations individuals accessing medical services, sought an exemption from municipal taxation under s 3(1)-12 of the Assessment Act.

The applicant argued it was organized for the relief of the poor because its clients are overwhelmingly poor.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's primary purpose was to address problems of geography and access to medical services, not the relief of poverty.

An organization operating treatment and support centres for children sought a declaration that two properties were exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)6.1 of the Assessment Act.

The respondents argued that the exemption applied only to facilities formally designated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as “Children’s Treatment Centers.” The court held that the legislation contained no definition requiring such designation and that the ordinary meaning of a children’s treatment centre governed.

Based on the evidence that the facilities primarily provided treatment to children and received provincial funding, the properties qualified for the exemption.

A declaration of tax exemption was granted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board, arguing that the presiding member breached procedural fairness by conducting an independent investigation into property listings.

The Divisional Court found that while the member did conduct an independent investigation, he disclosed this fact to the parties during the hearing and they proceeded without objection.

The Court held that the parties waived the potential apprehension of bias and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The City of Toronto brought a stated case from the Assessment Review Board to determine whether the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) or the Assessment Review Board (ARB) has the jurisdiction to alter a property's current value when issuing an omitted or supplementary assessment to change its tax status from exempt to taxable.

The Divisional Court held that neither MPAC nor the ARB has the power to change the current value of a property in these circumstances unless there has been a physical change to the property.

The power to issue omitted or supplementary assessments is limited to reflecting the change in tax status.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board and a subsequent review decision.

The presiding Board member had conducted an independent and secret investigation of facts.

The Divisional Court found this to be a fundamental breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, rendering the member without jurisdiction.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The applicant sought property tax exemptions under s. 3(1), para. 23 of the Assessment Act for two amusement attractions at a waterpark, along with related pump houses and structures housing operational machinery.

The court interpreted the statutory exemption for “mechanical amusement devices on which a person rides,” considering the purpose of the exemption and principles of tax statute interpretation.

It held that a mechanically generated lazy river ride and wave pool qualified as mechanical amusement devices because patrons experience mechanically produced movement on the water.

However, buildings housing the pumps and equipment were not exempt, as they constituted buildings rather than machinery or equipment, though specific concrete foundations supporting machinery were exempt.

The court ordered amendments to the assessment roll and refunds of any taxes improperly levied.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of four car dealerships in Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board had ruled that for the purposes of equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, similar lands in the 'vicinity' could not exceed the boundaries of the municipality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the legislature did not intend to limit 'vicinity' to municipal boundaries in the Assessment Act, as evidenced by explicit municipal boundary limitations placed on the term in other statutes like the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The matter was remitted to the Board for redetermination.

A non-profit organization providing rehabilitation services and limited residential accommodation for individuals with brain injuries sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under the Assessment Act as a 'house of refuge'.

The applicant argued that the entire building qualified because it provided protection, support, and rehabilitation services to vulnerable individuals.

The court applied the primary purpose test and held that a 'house of refuge' within s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act refers to a residence where people live.

Because only one floor of the building provided residential accommodation while the majority of the premises was used for rehabilitation and administrative purposes, the property as a whole did not qualify for the exemption.

The application was dismissed, though the residential floor was recognized as exempt from taxation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB), arguing the ARB lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality of omitted assessments.

The applicant contended this was a matter of liability for assessment, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court pursuant to s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue was not one of liability or exemption, but rather the quantum of the assessment and the assessor's power to retroactively add value.

Therefore, the matter fell within the ARB's jurisdiction under the Assessment Act.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that corrected an error in the assessment roll regarding a severed property.

The property had been inadvertently omitted from the roll, and the Board used its discretion under s. 44(1) of the Assessment Act to rectify the error, triggering s. 33 to assess the omitted property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law and confirming that the limitation period for complaints under s. 40(2) does not apply to properties erroneously left off the assessment roll.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which quashed its complaints regarding the property assessments of two properties.

The Board had found the City failed to comply with the notice provisions in s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act because it mailed the notices to the previous owner's address on the assessment roll despite knowing the properties had been sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the City acted reasonably and in good faith by using the address on the roll, which had not been revoked.

The Court found the Board erred in imposing a higher standard of inquiry on the municipality, set aside the decision, and remitted the complaints for a hearing on the merits.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a declaration that a non-profit apartment complex for recovering substance abusers was exempt from municipal taxation as a 'house of refuge' under s. 3(1)-11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the facility's primary purpose was to provide a protected environment and sanctuary from the peril of recidivism into addiction, thus qualifying for the exemption.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the interpretation of property class regulations.

The moving party argued the ARB ignored the clear wording of the regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision, as the ARB properly applied a teleological approach to statutory interpretation consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.