Melissa E. VanBerkum

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a property.

The Board had reduced the assessment value of the property to represent equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the test for leave was met and that the appeal involved an important question of law regarding the proper interpretation of s. 44(3)(b).

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.

VIA Rail appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the property tax assessment of the Ottawa railway station for the years 2009 to 2012.

VIA argued that because its national passenger railway service operates at a loss, the station suffers from 100% economic obsolescence and should be assessed at a nominal value.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision to assess the property using the replacement cost method less depreciation, finding that the Board reasonably concluded there was no empirical evidence to support 100% economic obsolescence given the station's ongoing use and value as a railway facility.

The moving party, Exchange Corporation Canada Inc., brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of Terminal T1 New at Pearson Airport.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and rental analyses used to determine the 2003, 2005, and 2008 base year current value assessments for the 2004-2011 taxation years.

The production was made subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings by legal counsel and consultants, with an exception for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The moving parties, various car rental companies, brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board regarding the production of documents by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered MPAC to produce income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and rental analyses used to determine the base year current value assessments for the 2004-2011 taxation years.

The production was conditional upon the receipt of executed confidentiality undertakings from legal counsel and consultants, except for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The Board also scheduled a further prehearing event by telephone conference.

The moving parties, retail tenants at Toronto Pearson International Airport, brought a motion for the production of assessment details, market information, and valuation records from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested documents, subject to the execution of strict confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants, to protect the sensitive commercial information of other airport tenants and regional shopping centres.

The applicant, a federal crown corporation operating a national passenger railway, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of its Ottawa passenger station for municipal taxation purposes.

The applicant argued the station had only nominal value due to the lack of a competitive market for passenger rail, while the respondent argued for a hypothetical market value.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's decision to create a hypothetical market and noting the case involved an important question of law regarding the valuation of railway stations.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The Board issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of productions and the filing of motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.

The appeals were adjourned to a subsequent telephone conference.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its rail yard.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to find a nearby rail yard was a comparable property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test and made no overriding or palpable factual error in concluding the two rail yards were not comparable due to significant differences in size, building area, and daily train traffic.

The applicants sought a declaration that provisions of a site‑specific zoning by‑law prohibiting “adult entertainment establishments as defined by the Municipal Act, 2001” were vague, void for uncertainty, and discriminatory.

The court considered whether the by‑law provided a sufficiently clear delineation of prohibited conduct and whether citizens could reasonably determine when they were in breach.

The court held that the by‑law failed to define key terms such as “goods” and “designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations,” leaving merchants unable to determine compliance and granting excessive enforcement discretion.

The court further found that the by‑law could produce discriminatory outcomes by permitting identical goods in some retail settings but prohibiting them in others.

The impugned provisions were therefore declared void for uncertainty and the application for declaratory relief was granted.

The applicants sought leave to appeal two decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of parking lots and a development site in downtown Toronto.

The core issue was whether 'air rights' or development rights should be classified as 'land' or 'real property' under the Assessment Act, which would allow them to be classified as 'vacant land' or 'excess land' and taxed at a lower rate.

The Divisional Court found no serious debate that air rights are not land for the purposes of the Act, as they have no physical existence and are merely attributes of the land.

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the classification of four surface parking lots in the City of Toronto for the taxation years 2001 through 2008.

The appellants argued that the 'air rights' above the parking lot surfaces should be classified in the Commercial Property Class, Vacant Land Subclass or Excess Land Subclass, as they have value, are capable of legal description, are severable, and assessable.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) classified the properties wholly in the Commercial Property Class, arguing that density potential is a restriction attached to the land, not land itself.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither the undeveloped air space above the property nor the air rights/development rights/density rights in the City of Toronto zoning by-law are 'land' within the meaning of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed the assessments and the classification of the properties in the Commercial Property Class.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to quash a new construction notice and recalculated property tax bills issued by the respondent municipality.

The municipality had failed to issue the notice within the 60-day period prescribed by s. 331(9) of the Municipal Act, 2001, delaying the billing by several years due to software limitations.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's finding that the word 'shall' in s. 331(9) is directory, not mandatory.

A mandatory interpretation would frustrate the statutory purpose of taxing comparable properties equally and grant the appellant a perpetual tax holiday, whereas a directory interpretation fulfilled the legislative intent without causing significant prejudice.