Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: May 27, 2021

FILE NO.: DM 169543

Assessed Person(s): Canadian National Railway Company

Appellant(s): SBA Communications Corporation

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 05

Respondent(s): City of Kingston

Property Location(s): 657 Station Street

Municipality(ies): City of Kingston

Roll Number(s): 1011-080-130-18350-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3412510 and 3440017

Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.: 742064

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

Parties / Representative

Canadian National Railway Company: Submissions not received

SBA Communications Corporation: Chantelle MacMillan

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation: Charmaine Siddle

City of Kingston: Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Dismissal of Appeal(s)

HEARD: March 25, 2021 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) has brought this motion requesting the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) dismiss appeals 3412510 and 3440017 (the “Subject Appeals”) for lack of jurisdiction.

2SBA Communications Corporation (the “Appellant”) opposes the motion.

3Neither the City of Kingston nor the Canadian National Railway Company have made submissions on this motion.

Result

4For the reasons that follow, the Subject Appeals are dismissed.

BACKGROUND

5The parties have provided the Board with an Agreed Statement of Facts.

6The Subject Appeals relate to a property with the municipal address of 657 Station Street in the City of Kingston, Ontario (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is owned by Canadian National Railway Company (the “Property Owner”). The Property Owner, MPAC, and the City of Kingston are respondents to the Subject Appeals.

7The Appellant has a communication tower located on the Subject Property. The Appellant filed an appeal with the Board relating to the Subject Property pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (the “Act”) for the 2020 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2021 taxation year.

8The Appellant delivered its Statement of Issues (“SOI”) on January 7, 2021. The only issue raised in the SOI is whether the Appellant’s communication tower located on the Subject Property should be exempt from taxation pursuant to s. 3(1)21 of the Act. The Appellant argues that the classification of the Subject Property is incorrect because the communication tower should be classified as exempt.

9The Appellant does not dispute the 2016 current value of the Subject Property.

10MPAC has brought this motion to dismiss the Subject Appeals on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear matters involving tax exemption.

ISSUES

11The Board must determine a single issue on this motion: should the Subject Appeals be dismissed?

ANALYSIS

12The Board has issued a decision in SBA Communications Corporation v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 01, 2021 CanLII 44050 (ON ARB) (“SBA Communications”) that is entirely applicable to this case. The Appellant was a party to the motion decided in SBA Communications. The facts are almost completely similar. The legal issue and submissions being advanced by MPAC and the Appellant on this motion are identical to those being advanced in SBA Communications.

13The Board has carefully considered the evidence, submissions and case law presented by the parties. The Board is satisfied that the decision issued in SBA Communications is entirely applicable to this case, and accordingly adopts and applies its findings and reasoning from SBA Communications to the within motion.

CONCLUSION

14For these reasons, the Board is satisfied it does not have jurisdiction to hear the Subject Appeals and determine whether the Subject Property is exempt from taxation.

ORDER

15The Board grants MPAC’s motion to dismiss the Subject Appeals.