Denis A. Michel

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of a used car dealership property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the value should be reduced from $1,433,000 to $1,100,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using both the cost approach and the direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's analysis reasonable and well-documented, particularly relying on the direct sales comparison approach.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,433,000, noting the superior construction of the subject property compared to the older structures of the comparable properties.

The accused brought a pre-trial application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking to exclude drug evidence.

The police had entered a residence without a warrant after arresting the primary tenant outside, fearing the accused would destroy evidence inside.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claim regarding the search of the residence without a hearing, as the accused failed to establish a privacy interest.

The court further held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry under s. 11(7) of the CDSA, and that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused after observing him attempting to flush drugs down a toilet.

The application was dismissed.

Purchasers of rural property alleged that the vendor misrepresented the location of the boundary and sought a declaration that they owned an additional 2.3 acres, a vesting order, and damages for trespass and conversion.

The defendant vendor moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parcel conveyed was the exact property described in the registered plan and protected by the Land Titles Act.

The court held that, because the property was registered under the land titles system and no fraud was pleaded, the purchasers could not obtain rectification of title or a vesting order inconsistent with the registered parcel.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claims for declaratory relief and a vesting order.

Claims for damages relating to trespass and removal of soil raised triable issues and were permitted to proceed to trial.