Allyson Amster

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2009 to 2022 taxation years, alleging a palpable error because the property was assessed as having a basement when it had been filled in.

The Assessment Review Board found that a palpable error existed for the 2010 to 2021 taxation years.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for bringing appeals, noting the property owner's failure to explain its delay and its own conduct in causally contributing to the error.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding a feed mill and grain silos.

The Assessment Review Board applied the framework from a recent decision, finding that assessing unusable portions of the feed mill as fully operational and assessing eight non-existent silos constituted palpable errors.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the prejudice to the property owner and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

Manulife sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that held it was estopped from appealing its 2021 and 2022 property tax assessments due to a prior settlement for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

Manulife also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's application of issue estoppel because the prior settlement explicitly applied only to the years under appeal and there had been no hearing on the merits regarding equitable adjustments.

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that found a palpable error in the assessment roll and extended the time for the property owner to appeal the classification of their property from Residential to Farm Property Class.

MPAC argued it did not receive notice of the original hearing and that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the property's classification.

The Board held that MPAC was deemed to have received notice because the emails were delivered to MPAC's unmonitored inboxes.

However, the Board found the original hearing member made an error of law by definitively finding a palpable error existed, which effectively determined the property's classification—a matter outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board varied the decision to state that it 'appears' there are palpable errors and limited the scope of the resulting appeals to whether the property qualifies for the Farm Property Class.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders that dismissed her previous proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice to the responding parties, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay, obvious prejudice to the responding parties, and that the proposed appeals were devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.

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.

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.

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.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to determine that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property and to prohibit the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

The property had been returned as exempt by MPAC.

The City attempted to challenge the exemption by appealing the property's classification.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that jurisdiction to determine tax exemption resides entirely with the Superior Court and prohibiting the City from circumventing this limitation by framing the issue as a classification dispute.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting a determination that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property, and an order prohibiting the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

MPAC had previously determined the subject property was exempt from taxation.

The City appealed, arguing the property should be classified in the multi-residential property class.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is exempt from taxation, as that jurisdiction resides with the Superior Court.

The Board also held that the City could not circumvent this limitation by challenging the property's classification, and prohibited the City from raising tax liability as an issue.

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.

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.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the property owner to extend the time to file assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to palpable errors in the assessment roll.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the municipal address and assessed the property based on the dimensions of a different property, resulting in a significant overassessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the errors were inadvertent, obvious, and highly prejudicial to the owner.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, extending the time for the appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the Assessment Review Board's decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board breached the moving party's procedural fairness rights.

The respondent and the Board took no position on the motion, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.