5 total
New hearing ordered in property assessment appeal after post-hearing $518M sale contradicted nominal valuation.
The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.
Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.
The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.
However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.
Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.
Motion for leave to appeal Assessment Review Board order dismissed with costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving party and the City of Toronto.
Motion to summon witness denied due to insufficient evidence summary, lack of established knowledge, and delay.
The City of Greater Sudbury requested the Assessment Review Board to summon Dale Panday, a director of Hanscomb Limited, as a witness for an upcoming hearing regarding the assessment of various mining properties.
The City sought his testimony on the accuracy of the Automated Costing System component values compared to actual construction costs in Sudbury.
The Board refused the request, finding that the City failed to provide a sufficient summary of the expected evidence, did not establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge, failed to identify the witness in the prior case management order, and made the request too late in the proceeding, which would cause unacceptable delay.
MPAC and ARB cannot alter a property's current value when issuing omitted assessments for status changes.
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.
Leave to appeal Assessment Review Board decision denied; no error in applying Market Adjustment Factor.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a Canadian Pacific Railway rail yard in Hamilton.
MPAC argued the Board erred in applying a Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) and in finding that CP was not in actual use and occupation of the portion of lands leased to Steelcare Inc. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on either issue, as the Board properly applied the relevant provisions of the Assessment Act and case law.
