John O’Kane

The appellants appealed the 2022-2025 property assessments for a property in Hamilton, including supplementary assessments made under s. 34 of the Assessment Act.

The Board raised a preliminary question of law regarding the applicable valuation day for the s. 34 assessments.

Although all parties agreed the valuation day was January 1, 2016, the Board required legal submissions to determine if this was correct in law, departing from previous Board decisions that suggested a different valuation day applied to supplementary assessments.

The Board concluded that s. 19.2 of the Act prescribes the valuation day for all assessments for a taxation year, including s. 34 supplementary assessments.

Therefore, the valuation day for the s. 34 assessments is January 1, 2016.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether its prior decision in Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner should be overruled.

That case had interpreted s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act to require a charitable, non-profit philanthropic corporation seeking a municipal tax exemption to show it provided relief to the poor by "some form of endeavour." The appellant, Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc., argued that this requirement was not supported by the statute or legislative intent.

The Court agreed, finding that Religious Hospitallers was wrongly decided, had not been followed in subsequent jurisprudence, and introduced a vague and unworkable "endeavour" requirement.

The Court overruled Religious Hospitallers, clarified the applicable test for exemption, and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a property tax exemption for its affordable housing properties.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously appealed the 2022 and 2023 taxation years, which were resolved via minutes of settlement signed by the appellant's paralegal representative.

The appellant argued that the paralegal lacked authority to accept the settlement and that the settlement was fraudulent or unconscionable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the prior decisions were final and involved the same parties and issues.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse issue estoppel, finding no evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or that the municipality knew of any limitation on the paralegal's authority.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a parking garage and waterpark complex for the 2015 through 2024 taxation years.

The Board found that MPAC properly applied higher omitted assessments for the years in question.

The Board determined that the highest and best use of the property was its current use.

Applying the cost approach for the waterpark and the income approach for the parking garage, the Board concluded the correct current value of the subject property was $48,476,000.

The appellants sought property tax relief for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that demolition and renovations prevented the use of their property as a warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2021 appeal, finding that the demolition and renovations did not occur during the 2021 taxation year or the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, which is a statutory requirement for relief.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g) but upheld the Town's calculation of the tax refund using the cost to cure approach, dismissing the appeal to vary the quantum.

Following an interim decision regarding the assessment of two properties in Brampton, the parties conferred and reached an agreement on the current values and apportionments for the taxation years under appeal.

The Assessment Review Board ordered that the current values and apportionments be revised in accordance with the parties' agreement, as set out in the attached schedules.

Appeals and cross-appeals were brought regarding the property assessments of a special purpose food processing facility (slaughterhouse and poultry processing plant) for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the properties using the Cost Approach.

The Board established a land rate of $401,101.61 per acre for non-farmed land, relying on comparable sales of partially serviced industrial lands.

For improvements, the Board preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding a reproduction cost new of $32,875,599 with a 14% functional obsolescence rate due to the piecemeal construction of the facility.

The Board declined to apply an equitable adjustment, finding insufficient evidence that the assessment was inequitable compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant, MGE Niagara Entertainment Inc., brought a motion requesting an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose the financial statements of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) and the calculations used to determine gross and net income in the Discounted Cash Flow analysis.

MPAC took no position but noted the information was protected under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, ordering MPAC to disclose the requested information subject to terms imposed under s. 53(5) of the Act, and suspended the schedule of events for 45 days.

The Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency brought a preliminary motion to dismiss an appeal by two non-resident sheep producers regarding the collection of license fees.

The Agency argued the producers lacked a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the producers were aggrieved persons who were required to pay fees and thus had a sufficient interest to be entitled to a hearing on the merits.

The Canadian Sheep Federation and three provincial sheep organizations brought a motion for participant status in an appeal challenging the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency's license fee and exemption policy.

The moving parties argued the policy acts as an inter-provincial trade barrier affecting out-of-province producers.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Sheep Federation, finding it could provide useful contextual and historical evidence without causing injustice to the respondent.

The motions by the three provincial organizations were dismissed, as they are members of the Canadian Sheep Federation and will have a voice through that organization.

The City of Brampton filed a request for review of a Board decision regarding an application by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to correct a palpable error on the Assessment Rolls for the taxation years 1995 to 2011.

The Board adopted its analysis from a related review decision concerning another unit in the same condominium complex.

The Board ordered the correction of the Assessment Rolls by removing the parent roll number for the subject property.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Board to reaffirm a cost apportionment formula for shared social services that had been used since 2004.

The applicant argued that the governing regulation required a 'double majority vote' in every year the alternate formula was continued.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not require an annual double majority vote once the alternate formula was initially approved, and that the Board's decision was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.

The City of Guelph brought a motion to prohibit the appellant from raising new issues in its Amended Statement of Issues that were not raised in its Original Statement of Issues, or alternatively to strike the amended pleading.

The appellant had originally pleaded that the property's assessment should be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but its amended pleading abandoned this issue and raised entirely new issues regarding valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the City had standing to bring the motion and the amended pleading was filed within an agreed-upon extension, allowing such a significant amendment at a late stage of the proceeding would violate procedural fairness and cause significant prejudice to the City.

The Board prohibited the appellant from raising the new issues or presenting related evidence.

The City of Hamilton appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of a steel manufacturing property owned by Stelco Inc. The sole issue was the current value of 411.6 acres of unused residual lands.

MPAC assessed the lands at a nominal value of $100 per acre due to the likelihood of environmental contamination and lack of market interest, while the City argued for a value of $125,000 per acre based on comparable sales of uncontaminated industrial lands.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence that the lands were unmarketable due to contamination concerns and confirmed the nominal assessment value.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which found it had no jurisdiction to consider his appeal regarding the classification of his property in the Farm Property Class.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure of requesting a reconsideration from the Administrator before appealing.

The court concluded there was no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

The City of Brampton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals because the appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appeals were designated as 'Legacy Appeals', which are subject to accelerated timelines and an expedited dismissal process for non-compliance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to comply with the deadline and that its explanation of inadvertence and misunderstanding was unsatisfactory.

Weighing the prejudice to both parties and the need to strictly enforce the Rules for Legacy Appeals, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The respondents brought motions to strike the appellant's Amended Statement of Issues and Reply, arguing it was served past the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that its rules do not provide for striking pleadings.

However, because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for missing the deadline to serve its Amended Statement of Issues, it cannot raise any new issues at the hearing that were not in its original Statement of Issues or its Amended Reply.

The Amended Reply was served on time and may be relied upon.

The City of Windsor brought a motion to dismiss the property tax appeals of 2198806 Ontario Inc., arguing that the Appellant breached the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure by raising new issues and altering the proposed amount of tax refunds in its legal submissions.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant's actions did not constitute a willful flouting of the Rules and that the City failed to demonstrate any prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

The Board adjourned the hearing to allow the City to respond to the Appellant's legal submissions.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision regarding vacant unit tax rebates for an industrial complex for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

Following an interim decision, the parties submitted agreed-upon calculations for the rebates.

The Board corrected minor clerical errors in the interim decision and ordered the municipality to pay the agreed rebate amounts for 2015 and 2016, while dismissing the appeal for 2017.

The City of Mississauga requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that granted a property tax refund to the owner of a mixed-use building substantially damaged by fire.

The City argued the Hearing Member erred in law and fact by misapprehending the assessed value, ignoring statutory formulas for calculating refunds, and relying on the actual cost of repairs rather than an automated cost estimate.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the Municipal Act does not prescribe a specific method for determining the reduction in property value under s. 357(1)(d), and that the Hearing Member's reliance on the actual cost of repairs was a reasonable application of the cost-to-cure approach supported by the evidence.