Karey Lunau

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that applied issue estoppel to dismiss their property tax assessment appeals.

The applicants attempted to re-open the 2016 valuation of their land based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their profitability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent market changes to business results do not constitute a change in the 'state and condition' of the land and are not a valid basis to re-open an assessment.

The appellant, a religious organization, appealed a decision affirming that its properties, primarily used for tai chi classes, were not exempt from property tax as "places of worship" under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the tai chi classes, while integral to the organization's religion, were not primarily "worship" from the perspective of the participants, and that a contemplative garden and sales area were also not tax-exempt.

The court emphasized an objective "primary purpose" test for tax exemptions, considering the intentions of participants, not solely the organizers.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property classification of two midrise multifamily residential apartment towers in Ajax, arguing they should be classified as New Multi-Residential (NT) rather than Multi-Residential (MT).

The issue turned on whether the units were built pursuant to a building permit issued on or after April 20, 2017, as required by section 10(2) of O. Reg. 282/98.

While initial partial permits were issued before this date, the full building permits required to complete the units were issued after April 20, 2017.

The Assessment Review Board found that the regulation's language was clear and unambiguous, and that the units were built pursuant to permits issued after the key date.

The Board ordered the properties to be classified as New Multi-Residential (NT).

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

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 requesting party sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served to the owners of the other properties, with only one objection that was not supported by submissions.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The moving party, an adjudicative tribunal, brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of one of its own decisions regarding property assessment.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the tribunal lacked a statutory right to appear and its participation threatened tribunal impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the established factors for tribunal intervention.

The court found that the tribunal could provide useful context regarding its statutory and procedural framework without engaging in the merits of the appeal or compromising its impartiality.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

Home Depot brought a motion to strike the City of Toronto's Amended Statements of Issues and several expert reports in a property assessment appeal.

Home Depot argued that the City's reply reports improperly raised new issues, specifically highest and best use and replacement cost new, which amounted to case-splitting.

The Assessment Review Board found that pleadings cannot be struck, but prohibited the City from relying on any expert reports addressing highest and best use or replacement cost new, as these issues were not properly pled and there were no exceptional circumstances to allow late amendments.

The City was permitted to rely on its reply report concerning depreciation and economic obsolescence.

The applicant sought judicial review to declare provisions of O. Reg 282/98 under the Assessment Act invalid.

The applicant argued that the regulation's formula for valuing pipelines resulted in an assessed value greater than current value, which it claimed was inconsistent with the purpose of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the purpose of the Assessment Act is to provide for the assessment and taxation of property, not strictly to assess based on current value.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Act expressly authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing an alternate method for valuing pipelines.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to preclude the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value of the property had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.

In a property assessment appeal, the City of Vaughan brought a motion to call a witness to provide oral testimony regarding a comparable sales analysis, despite failing to file a witness statement or expert report by the required deadline.

The City argued the witness would provide lay opinion evidence admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the request to call the witness, finding that the proposed testimony constituted expert opinion evidence on property valuation, which requires a compliant expert report under the Board's Rules.

The Board permitted the late filing of the City's Statement of Response, but clarified it could only be used to raise issues and not as evidence.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of two townhouse complexes, arguing they should be classified as 'new multi-residential' rather than 'multi-residential' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The properties underwent extensive renovations between 2012 and 2014 while vacant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the renovations did not meet the statutory requirement of being 'built' or 'converted from a non-residential use' pursuant to a building permit.

The Board held that the correct property class for the 2016 taxation year remained multi-residential.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified its student residence from the residential property class to the multi-residential property class.

The Board's decision relied on a previous ruling to interpret the term 'self-contained unit'.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's statutory interpretation and that the issue was of sufficient importance, as it affected over 80 properties and established a new approach to defining self-contained units.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of appraisals or opinions of value from the appellant, Home Depot.

The motion was brought significantly after the deadline for disclosure disputes set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify amending the Schedule of Events to permit the late motion.

Consequently, the motion for disclosure was denied, though the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the delay caused by the motion itself.

MPAC brought a motion for disclosure of rent rolls, operating statements, and other financial information from the appellant in a property assessment appeal concerning a premium outlet mall.

The appellant agreed to disclose information for 2015-2017 on the condition that MPAC execute a non-disclosure agreement, but opposed disclosure for 2018 and 2019.

The Assessment Review Board held that a non-disclosure agreement was not required, as existing statutory and common law protections were adequate.

The Board also granted MPAC's disclosure requests for 2018 and 2019, finding the information relevant to valuing new additions to the property and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

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 appealed the effective date of a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

The appellant argued the effective date should be July 3, 2017, when the facility went 'live' and began shipping inventory.

The respondent MPAC argued the effective date should be no later than February 1, 2017, when the municipality certified the building as suitable for occupancy.

The Board found that under s. 34(1)(a) of the Assessment Act, the test is when the building 'commences to be used for any purpose', not when it is fully operational or used for its ultimate intended purpose.

The Board concluded the building was used for any purpose by February 1, 2017, and dismissed the appeals.