Matthew Kanter

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,160.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.

The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.

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 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 applicant property owner sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that increased the assessed value of its property.

The Board had disposed of the matter based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, relying on ARB Rule 39 which deemed the non-participating applicant to have consented.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether ARB Rule 39 conflicts with s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which requires the consent of all parties to dispose of a proceeding without a hearing.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding an increase in the assessed value of its property.

The Board had previously increased the property's value based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, without the applicant's participation, relying on a rule that deemed non-responsive parties to not oppose settlements.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board erred in disposing of the proceeding without a hearing in the absence of the consent of all statutory parties, finding a potential conflict between the Board's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The applicant sought recognition in Ontario of U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings involving a large casino-entertainment corporate group, including an Ontario subsidiary managing the Windsor casino.

The court held the applicant was a proper foreign representative and that the U.S. proceeding qualified as a foreign main proceeding because the debtors’ centre of main interests was in the United States.

The court granted the initial recognition order and supplemental relief to preserve the status quo and protect Canadian assets while the U.S. venue dispute remained unresolved.

The supplemental order was modified to exclude a stay of actions against directors and officers.

The moving parties, a group of affiliated companies, sought leave to appeal a judgment setting aside an ex parte CCAA Initial Order.

The respondents, creditors of a Singapore subsidiary, successfully argued before the application judge that the CCAA court lacked jurisdiction over the subsidiary.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal held he had jurisdiction to hear the leave motion but refused leave, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the real debtors were Singapore companies with little connection to Canada and that the evidence did not support the initial ex parte findings of insolvency and intertwined finances.