Stephen Longo

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large-format retail food store in Toronto for the 2013-2025 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property based on a highest and best use (HABU) as a mixed-use redevelopment site, resulting in significantly higher values.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to prove a reasonable probability of rezoning within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation dates, noting the lack of a precinct plan and compatibility issues with a nearby sugar refinery.

The Board concluded the HABU was the property's current use and reduced the assessments to $28,731,000 for the 2012 base year and $43,260,000 for the 2016 base year, using the cost approach.

York University applied for a declaration that four student residence buildings on its campus, built and operated by a private developer, remained exempt from municipal property tax under section 18 of the York University Act, 1965.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued the buildings lost their exemption because they were used and occupied by the private developer for profit.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the buildings were used and occupied for the legislated purposes of the university, despite the involvement of a private developer, and therefore remained exempt from taxation.

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 requesting party, 57 Spadina GP Inc., sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

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 appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that renovations prevented the normal use of the fourth floor of its office building for all of 2022.

The municipality granted a partial refund.

On appeal, the Assessment Review Board found that renovations prevented normal use from January 1 to December 15, 2022.

The Board calculated the eligible relief based on a 50% current value adjustment for the renovated area and ordered the municipality to issue a further refund of $113,088.15.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a Divisional Court decision that affirmed an Assessment Review Board (Board) ruling.

The Board had found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the "highest and best use" (HBU) of properties for assessment purposes, instead accepting the respondents' valuation based on current use.

MPAC argued the Board erred by relying on a presumption of current use and by not independently determining current value based on comparable sales.

The Court of Appeal dismissed MPAC's appeal, holding that the Board did not make a legal error.

The Board correctly found MPAC failed to prove financial feasibility for its proposed HBU and was entitled to accept the respondents' valuation evidence, especially since MPAC's own expert conceded its appropriateness if their HBU was not established.

The court clarified that while no legal presumption of current use exists, the Board's role is to determine current value based on the evidence and submissions presented, with MPAC bearing the onus.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a Divisional Court order that had allowed appeals from a Superior Court order.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court's reasoning and conclusions, dismissing the appeal.

The parties also agreed on an all-inclusive costs award of $35,000 payable by the appellant to the respondents, covering all levels of court proceedings, including the motion for leave to appeal.

This motion arose from a contentious landlord-tenant relationship, addressing the proper calculation of realty taxes and occupancy expenses, and costs, following a prior application.

The court found the Landlord improperly used inconsistent methods to calculate the Tenant's realty tax allocation.

While declining to rule on occupancy expenses in this motion, the court remained seized of the issue.

Critically, the Landlord was ordered to pay the Tenant substantial indemnity costs for both the original application and this motion, totaling $709,017.39, due to the Landlord's "reprehensible" conduct, including attempting to evict the tenant for an ulterior motive (a better offer from another party) and engaging in vexatious litigation tactics.

The appellant requested a suspension of the schedule for a written hearing of the respondent's issue estoppel motion.

The appellant argued that the motion should be suspended pending the Divisional Court's final decision in a separate appeal (Manulife) where leave to appeal had been granted on similar issue estoppel grounds.

The Assessment Review Board denied the suspension request, finding that the Divisional Court's leave decision was based on case-specific facts regarding whether an equitable adjustment was addressed in a prior settlement, and was unlikely to impact the Board's adjudication of the respondent's motion in this case.

The appellant tenant appealed an application judge's declaration that the respondent landlord reasonably exercised its discretion under a commercial lease to allocate realty taxes using a 'Proportionate Share' calculation.

The tenant argued the application judge committed an extricable error of law under the Wastech framework by misidentifying the purpose of the discretionary clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the negotiated lease, and held that the landlord's use of the proportionate share method was reasonable.

The Requestor filed a Request for Review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the current value assessment of properties forming the Westridge Shopping Centre.

The Requestor argued the Board made a significant error of law or fact by adopting MPAC's capitalization rate analysis, which allegedly resulted in a 'leased fee' rather than 'fee simple' value.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the original Hearing Member properly understood the legal requirements, appropriately weighed the evidence regarding market rents, and made no significant error in preferring MPAC's evidence over the Requestor's.

The City of Toronto and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision holding that 'Air Parcels'—stratified parcels starting above the ground—are not 'land' under the Assessment Act until fixed to the ground.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that at common law, real property includes the air space above the ground.

The court held that the statutory definition of 'land' in the Assessment Act expanded upon, rather than restricted, the common law definition.

Consequently, the severed air parcels qualify as 'land' and are subject to assessment and taxation even before any structures are built.

Several property owners and tenants applied for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, arguing that COVID-19 pandemic restrictions 'damaged' their income-producing properties by rendering them substantially unusable.

The Assessment Review Board held a motion to determine the preliminary legal interpretation of the provision.

The Board found that the word 'damage' in the statute requires physical damage to a building, applying the ejusdem generis maxim to restrict the phrase 'or otherwise' to physical causes like the listed 'fire' and 'demolition'.

The Board concluded that 'damage' does not include 'legislative damage' caused by government restrictions on business operations.

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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reduced the current value assessments of several commercial properties.

MPAC argued the Board made legal errors by presuming the properties' current use was their highest and best use, by requiring annual determinations of highest and best use, and by failing to follow previous Board precedent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Court held that the presumption of current use merely reflects MPAC's statutory burden of proof, that annual assessments correctly account for changes in a property's state or condition, and that the Board is not strictly bound by its own prior decisions.

The applicant sought a determination on whether an "air parcel" constitutes assessable "land" under section 1(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.31.

The court concluded that an air parcel, as defined in a strata plan, is not "land" for the purposes of the Act until a physical structure is affixed to the ground.

The decision emphasized that the statutory definition of "land" is paramount, not common law or conveyancing practices, and that legislative amendment would be required to include air parcels for taxation.

The applicant's request for an order was granted, and costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for three properties comprising a big box shopping centre in Vaughan for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The Board determined the correct current value using the income approach, analyzing fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate.

The Board preferred the respondent MPAC's evidence, which relied on comparable properties in the same vicinity, over the appellants' mass appraisal study of properties across the Greater Toronto Area.

The Board ordered reductions for two of the properties based on MPAC's revised calculations and confirmed the assessment for the third property.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $9,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow it to file Statements of Response after the deadline had passed.

Uxbridge argued that administrative challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of a significant Board decision regarding gravel pit valuation constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Uxbridge had made a conscious decision not to participate initially and that the release of a precedent-setting decision does not amount to an exceptional circumstance justifying an extension.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a land assembly of five contiguous properties on King Street West in Toronto for the 2014-2020 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the properties based on a highest and best use of a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to rebut the presumption that the highest and best use is the existing use as 2 and 3-storey commercial buildings, as MPAC did not provide sufficient economic analysis to prove the financial feasibility of the proposed development.

The Board reduced the assessments to the current values proposed by the appellants' expert based on the existing use.