14 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Administrative dismissal for delay upheld where plaintiffs failed to explain inaction.
The appellant homeowners' action was administratively dismissed for delay under r. 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it was not set down for trial within five years of commencement.
The motion judge declined to set aside the dismissal, applying the Reid factors and finding insufficient evidence to explain the delay, with inferred prejudice where examinations for discovery had not occurred.
The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's reasoning, noting that the appellants bore the primary responsibility for their action's progress and that the delay was moving into the realm of 'inordinate' once the five-year mark was crossed.
Motion to dismiss assessment appeals deferred to main hearing due to new conflicting evidence.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.
The appellant opposed the motion and introduced new evidence in its reply submissions suggesting it had not resolved earlier appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years, contradicting its previous evidence.
The Assessment Review Board found that resolving the dispute over the 2017 to 2019 appeals was central to the motion but required evidentiary findings beyond the scope of the interim stage.
The Board dismissed the motion without prejudice to MPAC raising the issues at the main hearing.
Property assessment appeals dismissed based on issue estoppel from prior settled appeals.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022-2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.
The appellant had previously appealed the 2017 assessment, which was resolved by Minutes of Settlement establishing the property's value.
The Assessment Review Board found that the three requirements for issue estoppel were met: the same question regarding current value was decided, the prior decision was final, and the parties were identical.
Finding no injustice in applying the doctrine, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.
The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2018 taxation years, establishing the current value assessment for the subject property as of January 1, 2016.
The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the same question was being raised, the prior decision was final, and the parties were identical.
Relying on a recent identical decision involving the same appellant, the Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel and dismissed the appeals.
Property assessment appeals dismissed based on issue estoppel as the valuation was previously decided.
The appellant had previously appealed the 2017 to 2019 assessments for the same property, which were settled and finalized by the Board.
The Board found that the current appeals sought to relitigate the same issue—the current value assessment of the property as of January 1, 2016.
Concluding that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that no injustice would result, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.
Property assessment appeals dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel from a prior proceeding.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.
The appellant argued that the current value of the subject property was inequitable compared to similar lands.
The Assessment Review Board found that the issue of equitable adjustment had already been finally determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the 2017-2020 taxation years.
Applying recent Divisional Court jurisprudence, the Board held that all requirements for issue estoppel were met and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeals.
The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.
Property assessment appeals dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel regarding equitable reduction.
The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.
The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, agreeing to an assessed value.
In the current appeals, the appellant did not dispute the assessed value but sought a further reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.
The Assessment Review Board found that the issue of equitable reduction was necessarily before the Board in the prior proceedings and applied issue estoppel, dismissing the appeals.
Leave to appeal granted to challenge Board's application of issue estoppel to property tax assessments.
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.
Schedule of Events suspended pending Divisional Court resolution of related property assessment appeals.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for issue estoppel regarding the property assessment of the subject property.
The appellant requested that the Schedule of Events be suspended pending the resolution of two related cases before the Divisional Court.
The Assessment Review Board found that the related cases were engaged and that efficiency required suspending the Schedule of Events until the Divisional Court proceedings are resolved.
Motion granted; appellant estopped from re-litigating property assessment value previously resolved by settlement.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to estop the appellant from re-litigating the current value assessment of a property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
The parties had previously settled the 2017 to 2020 appeals for the same property, agreeing to a current value of $20,067,000 as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.
The Assessment Review Board found that the three requirements for issue estoppel were met: the same question was decided, the previous decision was final, and the parties were the same.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bypass issue estoppel, finding no injustice in holding the parties to their previous settlement for the remainder of the assessment cycle.
The motion was granted and the assessment was confirmed at $20,067,000.
Motion to dismiss assessment appeals denied; City properly delegated appeal authority and owner failed to respond.
The property owner brought a motion to dismiss the City of Ottawa's property assessment appeals, arguing the City failed to obtain municipal council ratification for the appeals and requesting the Board reject Minutes of Settlement entered into by the City and MPAC.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the City had properly delegated authority to file appeals under section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the owner to file a Statement of Response, noting the owner had been properly served but failed to participate in the proceedings.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if tribunal rules deeming consent conflict with the SPPA.
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.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if ARB Rule 39 conflicts with SPPA s. 4.1 regarding deemed consent.
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.
