Matthew Kanter

The moving party sought to file late appeals for property assessments from 2012 to 2017, alleging palpable errors regarding the inclusion of a parking space and locker.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to provide affidavit evidence as required by Rule 64.

Furthermore, the moving party did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged errors were inadvertent, unintentional, obvious, and plain, nor did they justify why the Board should exercise its discretion to allow late appeals.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year, alleging a palpable error in the property's classification as a new construction large industrial property rather than a commercial warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board found that while classification errors can constitute palpable errors under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence of the property's use in 2017.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if an error existed, it was not inadvertent or of conspicuous magnitude, and the Board would not exercise its discretion to extend the appeal deadline where the moving party simply failed to appeal in time.

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.