Courtney Toomath-West

The appellants requested an order requiring MPAC to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

The original owner of a hotel appealed its property assessment.

After selling the property, the original owner's agent improperly requested a withdrawal of the appeals, which the Board erroneously processed despite the assessing authority's objection and notice seeking a higher assessment.

Over two years later, the Board administratively re-instated the appeals without notice to the parties.

The new owner brought a motion to cancel the re-instated appeals.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to re-instate the appeals, doing so after such a long delay without notice or submissions was a denial of natural justice.

The Board cancelled the re-instated appeals, finding that the new owner would suffer undue prejudice by facing a potential retroactive tax liability for years it did not own the property.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a property tax exemption for premises it leases in four buildings.

The appellant argued that section 10 of the YMCA Act, which exempts 'buildings, lands... of the said association', should be interpreted broadly to include leased premises.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a leasehold interest is not 'land' or 'property of' the association within the meaning of the Assessment Act and the YMCA Act.

The exemption requires an ownership interest, and the plain meaning of the statute does not extend to leased properties.

The respondents issued a notice of action against the appellant within the two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention but failed to serve it within the six-month period under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The master granted an extension of time for service, which was affirmed by the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed, arguing the claim was extinguished under Article 29 of the Convention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that once a claim is issued within the two-year period, the Convention is satisfied and subsequent procedural requirements, including time for service, are governed by the Ontario Rules.

Four individuals injured in a motor vehicle accident received treatment from a chiropractor, who submitted OCF-23 forms to the appellant insurer.

The appellant argued these forms did not constitute a 'completed application for benefits' under s. 2 of O. Reg. 283/95.

The arbitrator and application judge found that the forms provided sufficient particulars to reasonably assist the insurer with processing the application and assessing the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that an application need not be on a specific form to trigger the 'pay now, dispute later' obligation, provided it contains sufficient information to commence adjusting the claim.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment decision finding it failed to comply with s. 64(14) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule when terminating the respondent's benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly assessed the issue of compliance.

The Court also upheld the award of compound interest under s. 68 of the Schedule, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a different conclusion.