K. Lunau

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.

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.

The appellants, a religious organization, appealed a decision denying property tax exemptions for certain properties under the Assessment Act.

The properties included portions of a temple site and several satellite sites used for Tai Chi classes.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the primary purpose of the satellite sites was not worship, but rather evangelization or physical health, and that the specific temple areas (sales area, campground, contemplative garden) did not qualify as places of worship.

The appeal was dismissed.