Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Linamar Corporation, 2016 CanLII 63288

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 14, 2016

FILE NO.: DM 2016M18

Moving Parties: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC")

Respondent(s): Linamar Corporation

Respondent(s): ABB Inc

Property Location(s): 201 Woodlawn Road West

Municipality(ies): City of Guelph

Roll Number(s): 2308-040-016-37200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2025373, 2025374, 2343542, 2691265, 2920449, 2952303, 3026427, 3090573 and 3157714

Taxation Year(s): 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 630844

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: July 6, 2016 in Guelph, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

MPAC C. Gryski

Linamar Corporation J. Walker

City of Guelph S. S. Worsfold

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DISPOSITION DELIVERED BY S. LIGHT

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1On consent of all the parties, MPAC's motion for an order to cancel and replace the order issued on April 29, 2015 as WR 129742 with the values provided in the minutes of settlement dated July 6, 2016, agreed to by the parties in Exhibit 1 and attached hereto as Attachment, is granted.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

2Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Practice of the Assessment Review Board ("Rules"), the parties reached a settlement before the hearing event was held to cancel decision WR 129742 and replace it with the Minutes of Settlement attached hereto as Attachment.

3The Assessment Review Board ("Board") has authority pursuant to s. 21.2 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.("Act"), to cancel its own decision where it considers it advisable and has enacted rules under s. 25.1 of the Act.

4The Board has enacted such rules and considers it advisable to cancel decision WR 129742 to finally resolve the proceedings for the 2009-2012 and 2013-2016 taxation years and avoid a multiplicity of further proceedings. This determination is also consistent with Rule 2 of the Rules directing the Board to liberally interpret the Rules to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding.