Belinda Schubert

York University applied for a declaration that four student residence buildings on its campus, built and operated by a private developer, remained exempt from municipal property tax under section 18 of the York University Act, 1965.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued the buildings lost their exemption because they were used and occupied by the private developer for profit.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the buildings were used and occupied for the legislated purposes of the university, despite the involvement of a private developer, and therefore remained exempt from taxation.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a mixed-use development comprising seven buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes transit-supportive density near a planned transit station and appropriate height transitions, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a revised proposal for four new mixed-use buildings containing 1,649 new residential units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal conforms to the Official Plan, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until various preconditions are satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a non-decision by the City of Toronto on a Zoning By-law Application for a mixed-use development.

The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle on most issues, with a revised proposal reducing the number of new buildings from five to four and adding a public park.

The only remaining issues involve an easement for access to the Danforth GO Station, which the applicant, the City, and Metrolinx are working to resolve.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue mediation efforts and submit a draft final Procedural Order and Issues List by January 24, 2025.

A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County of Lambton's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 3, adopted by the City of Sarnia.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent.

The parties agreed to participate in a scoping exercise to identify the specific sections and schedules of the OPA under appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 28, 2024, to provide an update on the scoping exercise and to schedule a hearing date.

The moving party (assessed person) brought a motion to prohibit the appellant municipality from raising the tax liability of two surge tanks as an issue in the assessment appeals, arguing the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine tax exemptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality was not asking for a determination on tax exemption, but rather asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the property's current value, which is within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also denied the moving party's request to file a supplementary expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a 38-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal received an update on settlement discussions and approved the Procedural Order on consent of the parties, maintaining a 10-day hearing schedule.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jacob's Tent Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval within statutory timeframes.

The appeals relate to a proposed mixed-use development on Danforth Avenue.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent, granted participant status to a daycare centre, approved a Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to five adjacent or nearby landowners on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a ten-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing for appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers at 2721 Danforth Avenue in Toronto.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on September 23, 2024, for 15 days.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed mixed-use development with 35-storey and 55-storey towers, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits to commence on September 23, 2024, and directed the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order.

The assessed persons, Glencore and Vale, brought a motion to prevent the City of Greater Sudbury from amending its pleadings and advancing certain issues in property assessment appeals for eight mining properties.

They argued that the City was precluded from doing so based on issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, abuse of process, and admissions, relying on a previous Board decision concerning six related properties and representations made in joint procedural requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the same questions had not been decided, no unequivocal promises were made, the City was following the Board's ordered process, and no binding admissions had been made.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development at 5800 Yonge Street.

The parties reached a settlement proposing four new residential and mixed-use buildings, new public streets, parkland dedication, and a childcare facility.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed settlement is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and municipal official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of several active mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The City argued that the assessments by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) were too low and sought significant increases.

The Board applied the cost approach to determine the current value, evaluating the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value.

The Board rejected the City's evidence, finding it unreliable and based on incorrect premises, and instead accepted MPAC's detailed and transparent costing and valuation methodology, which was supported by the property owners' experts.

The Board confirmed MPAC's current value assessments and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the current value assessments of two commercial properties on Bloor Street West for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the direct income capitalization approach and agreed on most values, leaving only the fair market rent for ground-floor retail space in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board determined the fair market rent to be $305 per square foot, preferring the respondent's methodology for calculating net effective rent without discounting future rents to present value and without deducting the owner's portion of tenant improvement allowances.

The Board also rejected the appellants' argument that net effective rent should be reduced to account for unexpected property tax increases following the 2016 general reassessment.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.