Donald Mitchell

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Assessment Review Board denying their motion to amend their Statement of Issues to include evidence of reduced property values during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature, did not meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to review an interlocutory decision, and that the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a statutory appeal from the Board's final decision.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $3,500 to the respondent, noting that consistent with usual practice, no reasons are provided for decisions on leave to appeal.

The applicants, a private management company and a school board, sought a declaration that a sports facility operated by the company on school board land was exempt from property tax.

The municipal assessment corporation had assessed the land as taxable, arguing the company was a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the licence agreement between the company and the school board created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The company satisfied the essential elements for rateable occupation, including actual occupation, exclusivity, value, and permanence.

Consequently, the land was not exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying 32 of its natural gas gate stations as industrial rather than commercial properties.

The Board had found that adding odourant to natural gas constituted 'processing' under the Assessment Act regulations.

The Divisional Court clarified that the test for leave to appeal where the standard of review is reasonableness is whether there is reason to doubt the reasonableness of the decision, rather than its correctness.

Finding that there was reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'processing' and that the issue was of sufficient importance, the Court granted leave to appeal.

The applicant church sought a declaration that its single-building complex, which housed both a place of worship and a religious school, was exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The respondent assessment corporation argued that the school portions were taxable because the school was operated by a separately incorporated entity.

The court found that the church and the school formed a single patrimony, with the church controlling and dominating the school's operations.

The court held that the exemptions for a place of worship and a non-profit educational seminary applied to the school-use areas, granting the application.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a Canadian Pacific Railway rail yard in Hamilton.

MPAC argued the Board erred in applying a Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) and in finding that CP was not in actual use and occupation of the portion of lands leased to Steelcare Inc. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on either issue, as the Board properly applied the relevant provisions of the Assessment Act and case law.

The applicants, a public hospital and its foundation, applied for a property tax exemption for the foundation's offices, arguing they shared an identity or patrimony with the hospital.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the foundation was a separate corporate entity with its own governance, objects, and funding, and did not share a sufficient identity or patrimony with the hospital to qualify for the public hospital exemption under the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to stay a 16-day hearing before the Assessment Review Board pending an application for judicial review.

MPAC argued the Board improperly intervened by allowing the complainants to re-open their case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to raise a serious argument that exceptional circumstances justified interlocutory judicial review before the administrative process concluded.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the property assessment of his home for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law and procedure, including failing to consider nuisance factors and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to raise a question of law or establish any reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, which was based on factual determinations.