Daniel Rosman

Bell Canada appealed the property assessment of its telecommunications switching facility in downtown Toronto for the 2017-2022 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $33,368,000 using the income approach, while Bell Canada argued for $13,876,000 using the cost approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the cost approach was the correct method given the property's unique use and statutory restrictions on its sale under the Bell Canada Act.

The Board determined the current value to be $38,938,000 but reduced it to $21,509,000 to reflect equitable assessment, relying on the assessment of a highly comparable Bell Canada facility nearby.

The Assessment Review Board held a settlement conference regarding property assessment appeals for a Bell switching station in Toronto.

The parties agreed on the current use valuation, replacement cost, and capitalization rate, but disputed the fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and equity.

The Board issued a case management order setting the hearing dates, witness schedule, and procedural directions for the upcoming video conference hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, a former employee and son-in-law, who defrauded the plaintiffs' accounting firm of $342,170.22 by diverting client payments to a sham bank account.

The defendant sought to amend his statement of defence to plead that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, arguing the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the fraud earlier.

The court granted the amendment but found no evidence to support the limitation defence.

Summary judgment was granted for the full amount of the diverted funds, plus $50,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's deceitful and high-handed conduct.

A Mareva injunction was also extended to assist with enforcement.