Michael Bowman

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which classified an entire property as industrial.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply s. 6(1) of O.Reg. 282/98 under the Assessment Act.

Given the Board's findings that the appellant company operated independently, did no manufacturing, and had a separate lease, the portion of the property used by the company should have been classified as commercial.

The appeal was allowed, and the portion of the property was restored to the commercial property class for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a portion of their property from commercial to industrial.

The property was occupied by two related but separate corporations, one a manufacturer and one a distributor, under separate leases.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision to treat the two lessees as one corporation and its application of the statutory provisions, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant Divisional Court review.

The appellant, owner of a mixed-use building, appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision upholding the assessment of its residential units as an income-producing multi-residential rental property.

The residential units were subject to a 999-year lease arrangement where 'co-owners' held an undivided percentage interest in the lease and a right to occupy specific units.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by strictly applying property law distinctions between leasehold and fee simple interests.

The Court held that under the Assessment Act, the leasehold interests were sufficiently similar to fee-based co-ownerships (like condominiums) to warrant similar assessment treatment.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer closed its egg grading business and sold it to a newly formed company to evade its collective bargaining obligations.

The union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred and that its bargaining rights bound the new company, as well as remedies for unfair labour practices.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred, but that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to the new company's location.

The Board also found that the plant closure was economically motivated and not an unfair labour practice.

However, the Board concluded that the new company unlawfully refused to hire several former employees because of their suspected union activity, and that the predecessor employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by refusing to allow striking employees to return to work following a Board order.

The employer claimed the employees had engaged in a mass resignation by walking out of a training session and failing to provide notice of absence.

The Board found that the employer's strict application of its absence policy lacked a credible business justification and was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with compensation.