Jamie G. Walker

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a Divisional Court order that had allowed appeals from a Superior Court order.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court's reasoning and conclusions, dismissing the appeal.

The parties also agreed on an all-inclusive costs award of $35,000 payable by the appellant to the respondents, covering all levels of court proceedings, including the motion for leave to appeal.

The Appellant appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

In previous interim decisions, the Board confirmed the current values for 2009-2022.

MPAC sought to amend the 2017 current value to reflect a supplementary assessment for a body shop expansion completed mid-year.

The Board found that under the agreed Production Capacity Cost Approach Method, the expansion did not change the facility's normalized annual production capacity, and therefore did not increase the Replacement Cost New.

The Board concluded no amendment to the 2017 current value was required and directed the parties to finalize apportionments.

This motion arose from a contentious landlord-tenant relationship, addressing the proper calculation of realty taxes and occupancy expenses, and costs, following a prior application.

The court found the Landlord improperly used inconsistent methods to calculate the Tenant's realty tax allocation.

While declining to rule on occupancy expenses in this motion, the court remained seized of the issue.

Critically, the Landlord was ordered to pay the Tenant substantial indemnity costs for both the original application and this motion, totaling $709,017.39, due to the Landlord's "reprehensible" conduct, including attempting to evict the tenant for an ulterior motive (a better offer from another party) and engaging in vexatious litigation tactics.

The Appellant, General Motors of Canada Company, appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed that an equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act but disagreed on the quantum.

The Board found that the best evidence to determine the equitable reduction was the Appellant's approach, which focused on the lower average construction cost rates used by MPAC to calculate the replacement cost new for similar properties.

The Board ordered reductions to the current values for the taxation years under appeal based on the Appellant's proposed percentage reductions, but rejected the Appellant's request for an additional adjustment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of actual construction costs and related documents from Amazon Inc. regarding a newly built distribution centre.

Amazon opposed the motion, arguing the request was disproportionate and the information irrelevant.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed construction costs and that the request was proportionate given the size and complexity of the property.

The Board ordered Amazon to disclose the requested documents.

The City of Toronto and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision holding that 'Air Parcels'—stratified parcels starting above the ground—are not 'land' under the Assessment Act until fixed to the ground.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that at common law, real property includes the air space above the ground.

The court held that the statutory definition of 'land' in the Assessment Act expanded upon, rather than restricted, the common law definition.

Consequently, the severed air parcels qualify as 'land' and are subject to assessment and taxation even before any structures are built.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order declaring that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 43 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and that equity of the assessments was not a live issue for the hearing.

The Board found that the appellant's Statement of Issues did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 43.

However, the Board declined to declare that equity was not a live issue, noting its statutory duty under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act to consider equitable assessment.

The Board found that MPAC and the City had sufficient notice of the appellant's position through an expert report, mitigating any prejudice, and allowed equity to be raised at the hearing.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the property owner and MPAC in an assessment appeal concerning a casino property.

The Owner opposed the motion, arguing it was out of time and seeking dismissal of the appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely and declined to address the Owner's dismissal request on a disclosure motion.

Applying the test of relevance and proportionality, the Board ordered the Owner to disclose lease information, valuation analyses for the 2016 base year, and construction costs for the five years preceding the valuation date.

The Board declined to order MPAC to disclose certain documents protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act because the City had not provided the requisite statutory notice to affected third parties.

The appellant requested a review of a previous Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant argued that it did not receive notice of the conference.

The Board found that the appellant had filed all necessary materials prior to the conference and failed to attend through no fault of its own.

The motion was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellant sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals after the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) filed a Statement of Response seeking a higher assessment based on the property's development potential.

The appellant argued that MPAC's Statement of Response lacked particularity and failed to comply with Rule 38(7), and that the appellant would be prejudiced if not allowed to withdraw.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC's pleading provided a clear evidentiary pathway and complied with the rules.

The Board also held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, as MPAC is entitled under the Assessment Act to seek a higher assessment during an appeal.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of its property assessment appeals, which had been dismissed for failure to serve Statements of Issues on time.

The dismissal order was issued during the retroactive period of the provincial COVID-19 Emergency Order (O. Reg. 73/20), which suspended limitation periods.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error because the Board had publicly stated it would not adjudicate requests to dismiss during the Emergency Order.

The appeals were reinstated without conditions.

The respondents (MPAC and the City of Cambridge) brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the appellant Toyota's excess capital and operating cost calculations for its Cambridge plant.

Toyota opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the information would be in forthcoming expert reports, that the requests lacked specificity, and that it had already disclosed significant material.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that relevance is the primary consideration and that Toyota has an ongoing obligation to disclose relevant documents in its possession.

The Board ordered production of the requested documents, except for a third-party expert report prepared for General Motors, which requires notice to GM.

The appellant property owner sought to withdraw its assessment appeals.

MPAC objected and brought a motion to reinstate the appeals, arguing that it had given notice of its intention to request a higher assessment in its Statement of Response, which under Rule 72 precludes withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's Statement of Response constituted valid notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Board granted MPAC's motion and reinstated the appeals, noting the appellant could still bring a formal motion for permission to withdraw.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a residential property.

The Board had found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the property's current value and, as a result, fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value rather than determining the current value.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's approach was contrary to the Assessment Act, which strictly requires the Board to determine the current value of the property.

The matter was remitted back to the Board.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

The applicant, a commercial tenant responsible for municipal taxes, sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment.

Although the applicant was entitled to receive a notice of assessment and the municipality failed to provide it, the applicant received supplementary tax bills in July 2018 but did not file its appeal until January 2019.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant became aware of the assessment upon receiving the tax bills and failed to file within the 30-day period required by Rule 26(b).

The Board declined to extend the timeline under Rule 17, noting the unexplained five-month delay, and dismissed the application.

The moving party, a tenant responsible for paying property taxes, sought permission to file a late appeal of a 2018 property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The tenant argued it was entitled to a copy of the notice of assessment from the landlord under s. 35(2) of the Assessment Act, but did not receive it until nearly six months later.

The Board found that the tenant was a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment and that the landlord's failure to provide it justified the late appeal.

Although the application was filed three days after the 30-day deadline, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the time, citing fairness and lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to file a late appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying thirty-two natural gas gate station properties as Industrial Property Class rather than Commercial Property Class.

The Board found that adding a legally required odorant to natural gas constituted 'processing' because it changed the product's character and made it more marketable.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that a legal requirement to add an odorant to permit the gas to be legally sold renders the gas more marketable.

The appeal was dismissed.