Michael S. Steinberg

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision invalidating assessments made under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act.

MPAC had assessed a fully-occupied residential property as 'vacant land' and later re-assessed it to add the 'omitted' building.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that no land liable to assessment had been omitted.

MPAC had identified 293 individual apartment units and assigned each a unique roll number, meaning the building was not omitted simply because MPAC failed to put a current value on it.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB), arguing the ARB lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality of omitted assessments.

The applicant contended this was a matter of liability for assessment, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court pursuant to s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue was not one of liability or exemption, but rather the quantum of the assessment and the assessor's power to retroactively add value.

Therefore, the matter fell within the ARB's jurisdiction under the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the assessment of its commercial office building, arguing the Board failed to consider the assessed value of similar lands in the vicinity as required by s. 44(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court held that while s. 44(2) mandates consideration of similar properties' assessments, the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of such assessments before the Board.

Due to the inadequate evidentiary record, the appeal was dismissed.