Angus MacKay

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that applied issue estoppel to dismiss their property tax assessment appeals.

The applicants attempted to re-open the 2016 valuation of their land based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their profitability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent market changes to business results do not constitute a change in the 'state and condition' of the land and are not a valid basis to re-open an assessment.

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.

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 appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the municipality regarding alleged errors in his property tax calculations.

The Small Claims Court found that the claim was statute-barred and that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order or deal with property tax disputes, which are governed by a comprehensive statutory scheme.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the determination that the claim was out of time and that the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment is ousted by the statutory scheme for property assessment and taxation.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an Assessment Review Board decision classifying their properties, which were under construction for residential condominiums, as multi-residential rather than residential for property tax purposes.

The Divisional Court found no error in the Board's interpretation that buildings under construction constitute 'vacant land' under O. Reg. 282/98, as they were not yet being used.

The Court also upheld the Board's finding that the properties were principally zoned for multi-residential development.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision that directed MPAC to bring a complaint to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for two severed parcels.

The Board limited the complaint to apportioning the existing $773,000 assessment between the parcels, precluding MPAC from seeking an increased current value assessment of $1,650,000 due to MPAC's delay and resulting prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly and reasonably exercised its discretion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.