Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 30, 2015
Assessed Person(s): U. S. Steel Canada Inc.
Appellant(s): U. S. Steel Canada Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 20
Respondent(s): Haldimand County
Property Location(s): 1034 Regional Road, 19 Hawk Street and 2330 Haldimand Road
Municipality(ies): Halidimand County
Roll Number(s): 2810-332-001-47520-0000 2810-332-001-47640-0000 2810-332-001-41600-0000
Appeal Number(s): 2884322, 2884323, 2884324, 3037680, 3037681, 3061927, 3061928 and 3061929
Taxation Year(s): 2009, 2010 and 2013
Hearing Event No. 576955
Legislative Authority: Section 364.(14) of the Municipal Act, R. S. O. 2001, ,c. 25, as amended
ARB Case Name: ID 130736
Heard: February 11, 2015 in Cayuga, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties U. S. Steel Canada Inc. Haldimand County
Counsel David Fleet Woodward McKaig
INTERIM DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ROBERT STEINBERG AND JOSEPH M. WYGER
INTRODUCTION
1U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (“US Steel”) owns and operates a steel mill near the shores of Lake Erie in Haldimand County, Ontario. The factory produces steel using three separate buildings. The main building housed all of the machinery required to produce the steel. Two other buildings referred to as “pickling plants”, accepted the raw steel and scrub it into a condition that is fit for transacting and transporting. US Steel has not been immune to labour disruptions over the years. One of those labour disruptions occurred in 2009, extending into 2010. The most recent one lasted some four months in 2013. In February of 2011, and again in February of 2014, US Steel applied in time to the County for rebates of property taxes under the vacancy rebate program set out in the Municipal Act (“Act”). Haldimand County refused to refund any taxes paid by the steelmaker principally because of its’ view that the business continued during the lockout and the County believed that a voluntary idling of the plant was not grounds for a tax rebate. The company now seeks their remedy from this Board.
2A secondary issue involved whether the 2009