Scott McAnsh

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 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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. against the Municipality of West Perth.

The appeals relate to a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant, Langs Community Development Corporation (LCDC), sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal property tax under s. 3(1)(12)iii of the Assessment Act, arguing it was a charitable, non-profit corporation organized for the relief of the poor and supported by public funds.

The respondents opposed, arguing LCDC did not meet the statutory requirements.

The court found that LCDC shared an identity in patrimony with Langs Farm Village Association (Langs), was supported in part by public funds (through a significant grant from the City of Cambridge), and was organized for the relief of the poor, both independently and by virtue of its shared identity with Langs.

The application for tax exemption was granted.

The appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of two witness statements past the deadline in the Schedule of Events for its property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found no exceptional circumstances to alter the Schedule of Events under Rule 40, as the respondent had previously challenged the validity of the 2021 sale in its pleadings.

However, applying Rule 7 regarding non-compliance, the Board permitted the late filing and testimony of the proposed factual witnesses, finding no prejudice to the respondent since a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to amend its pleadings and expert report in response.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to the abutting property owners.

The parties requested and were granted a six-month adjournment to continue without-prejudice discussions, with a second Case Management Conference scheduled for January 2024.

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.

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that found a palpable error in the assessment roll and extended the time for the property owner to appeal the classification of their property from Residential to Farm Property Class.

MPAC argued it did not receive notice of the original hearing and that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the property's classification.

The Board held that MPAC was deemed to have received notice because the emails were delivered to MPAC's unmonitored inboxes.

However, the Board found the original hearing member made an error of law by definitively finding a palpable error existed, which effectively determined the property's classification—a matter outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board varied the decision to state that it 'appears' there are palpable errors and limited the scope of the resulting appeals to whether the property qualifies for the Farm Property Class.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding property tax relief for a hotel undergoing demolition and renovation during the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred by not considering relief under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for 2016, and by misinterpreting the demolition provisions for 2017.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no errors in the original decision, as no section 357 appeal was actually filed for 2016, and the demolition that rendered the property substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017.

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 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 moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, arguing that his 175-acre farm was incorrectly classified in the residential property class instead of the farm property class.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect classification was a palpable error in the assessment roll.

Balancing the factors of correctness, timing, finality, and fairness, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the significant financial prejudice to the moving party and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a property assessment, arguing that MPAC lacked the authority to issue a second omitted assessment under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2019 taxation year.

MPAC had initially issued an omitted assessment for the parent property, but subsequently issued another to account for the property's conversion into condominium units.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the registration of the condominium plan created new 'lands' that had been omitted from the assessment roll, thereby obligating MPAC to issue the subsequent omitted assessments to correct the roll.

The City of Ottawa appealed the property assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement.

The Board issued decisions based on the settlement.

The owner later requested a review, claiming it never received notice of the appeal.

The Board initiated a review but found that the owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own administrative mismanagement.

The Board confirmed its previous decisions, holding that the owner was deemed not to oppose the settlement under Rule 39.

The Board also allowed the owner's late-filed 2020 appeal due to the COVID-19 suspension of limitation periods.

The City of Ottawa appealed the assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The Owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement, which the Board issued as decisions for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The Owner sought to set aside the decisions, claiming it did not receive notice of the appeals.

The Board initiated a review of the decisions.

The Board found that the Owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own carelessness.

The Board held that the deeming provision in Rule 39 (deemed consent to settlement if no response is filed) is absolute and within the Board's jurisdiction to impose.

The Board confirmed the decisions but allowed the Owner's late-filed 2020 appeal to proceed because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20.

The appellant company sought property tax relief for a hotel undergoing major renovations and rebranding in 2016 and 2017.

For 2016, the Board found it had no jurisdiction to consider a s. 357 appeal as none was filed, but granted a vacant unit rebate under s. 364 for the entire property from May to December, calculating the rebate based on the assessed value rather than a notional value.

For 2017, the Board found the property ineligible for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) because the demolition occurred prior to 2017, and ineligible under s. 357(1)(g) due to the statutory exception for vacant unit rebate eligible properties.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a s. 364 rebate for 2017 as no such application was made.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to discontinue their proposed class action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, due to an inability to secure litigation funding.

They also sought leave to proceed with two individual actions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the discontinuance would not prejudice putative class members, as there were other similar proposed class actions and no public announcement of this action had been made.

The court also granted leave for the plaintiffs to continue their claims as individual actions pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.