Richard Minster

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 Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020-2025 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing the 2016 current value assessment was already settled in prior appeals.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to determine if the statutory basis for MPAC's subsequent assessment changes altered the valuation day, which left the Board unable to conclude whether the same question was being raised or if the prior decisions were final for these purposes.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2025 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant had previously withdrawn appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years following an agreement with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior appeals were withdrawn without a final Board decision.

The Board also held that the current appeals were not an abuse of process, as allowing them to proceed would not offend judicial economy, consistency, or finality.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that physical alterations and the loss of an anchor tenant constituted changes under s. 34 of the Assessment Act, resulting in a different valuation day and a different question to be decided.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed MPAC's motion, finding it premature to determine issue estoppel and abuse of process at the interim stage without further evidence regarding the statutory basis for the changes in the assessed values.

The requesting party, Cadillac Fairview, brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Toronto, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party sought an order compelling the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Three third-party property owners objected to the disclosure without confidentiality protections.

The Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure request pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act, ordering that the documents be produced subject to MPAC's standard confidentiality agreement and that certain documents filed with the Board remain confidential and not form part of the public record.

The moving party (assessed person) brought a motion to prohibit the appellant municipality from raising the tax liability of two surge tanks as an issue in the assessment appeals, arguing the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine tax exemptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality was not asking for a determination on tax exemption, but rather asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the property's current value, which is within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also denied the moving party's request to file a supplementary expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

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 City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of eight mining properties.

The City sought various documents related to MPAC's land value analysis and cost rates under the Cost Approach valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality under Rule 45.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose specific sales verification questionnaires and a legible version of its 2016 Automated Cost Systems rates, subject to redactions under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Board denied several other requests as being overly broad, disproportionate, or relating to documents not in MPAC's possession.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 102 and Zoning By-law No. 18-114, which imposed height restrictions and included their properties in a Cultural Heritage Landscape.

The parties reached a settlement proposing site-specific revisions to increase the maximum building height from 44 metres to 78 metres while maintaining the heritage designation.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the modifications consistent with provincial policies, representative of good planning, and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

Bell Canada appealed the property assessment of its telecommunications switching facility in downtown Toronto for the 2017-2022 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $33,368,000 using the income approach, while Bell Canada argued for $13,876,000 using the cost approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the cost approach was the correct method given the property's unique use and statutory restrictions on its sale under the Bell Canada Act.

The Board determined the current value to be $38,938,000 but reduced it to $21,509,000 to reflect equitable assessment, relying on the assessment of a highly comparable Bell Canada facility nearby.

The assessed persons, Glencore and Vale, brought a motion to prevent the City of Greater Sudbury from amending its pleadings and advancing certain issues in property assessment appeals for eight mining properties.

They argued that the City was precluded from doing so based on issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, abuse of process, and admissions, relying on a previous Board decision concerning six related properties and representations made in joint procedural requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the same questions had not been decided, no unequivocal promises were made, the City was following the Board's ordered process, and no binding admissions had been made.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking disclosure from Cadillac Fairview and MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for the CF Lime Ridge Mall.

Cadillac Fairview opposed the motion, arguing the City failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City missed the deadlines for bringing the motion and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

Consequently, the Board denied the City's motion for disclosure.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of several active mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The City argued that the assessments by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) were too low and sought significant increases.

The Board applied the cost approach to determine the current value, evaluating the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value.

The Board rejected the City's evidence, finding it unreliable and based on incorrect premises, and instead accepted MPAC's detailed and transparent costing and valuation methodology, which was supported by the property owners' experts.

The Board confirmed MPAC's current value assessments and found no equitable reduction was required.