Michelle J.T. Cicchino

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.

The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessments for two multi-residential properties in Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of its proposed current values, as its evidence using gross income multipliers and direct comparisons was flawed and unsupported.

Relying on the appellant's expert appraisal evidence, the Board determined the current values using the income approach.

The Board also found that similar multi-residential properties in the vicinity were assessed at 92.99% of their current value, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessments accordingly.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.