Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: July 16, 2021 FILE NO.: WR 170993

Assessed Person(s): Waste Management of Canada Corporation Appellant(s): Township of Warwick Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 26 Respondent(s): Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Property Location(s): Warwick Con 3 Ser Lots 19 Municipality(ies): Township of Warwick-Watford Roll Number(s): 3841-041-001-07100-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3344506, 3410377 and 3448688 Taxation Year(s): 2019, 2020 and 2021 Hearing Event No.: 744068

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Township of Warwick	Cynthia Kuehl, Lucy Sun
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Jeffrey E. Feiner, Matthew Kanter, Hilary A. Brown
Waste Management of Canada Corporation	Robert Brazzell, Jesse White

HEARD: May 19-20, 2021 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Pierre R. Lavigne, Member Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Township of Warwick (the “Appellant”) appeals the assessment of a 735.71 acre active private landfill pursuant to section 40(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 (the “Act”). The Appellant states that the assessment is too low and therefore incorrect.

Background

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) position is that the correct current value of this landfill located at Warwick Con 3 Ser Lot 19 in the Township of Warwick/Watford in the County of Lambton, known as the Twin Creeks Landfill (the “Subject Property”), is $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years under appeal. MPAC’s position is that its interpretation of section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 of the General Regulations made pursuant to the Act (“section 43.2”) requires that the words “the current value of the land be determined as if were vacant industrial land” be read to exclude any additional value for the remaining landfilling capacity. The owner of the Subject Property, Waste Management of Canada Corporation (“Waste Management”), agrees with that position.

3The Appellant’s position is that the correct value of the Subject Property is $29,718,300 based on its interpretation of section 43.2, which would include additional value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity pursuant to a current environmental compliance approval (“ECA”).

Areas of Agreement

4The parties reached the following agreements for this hearing (with words capitalized in their written submission as follows):

1. the Total Site Area is 735.71 acres
2. the Total Site Area is apportioned among the following classifications
   • Landfill (HT)
   • Commercial (New Construction) (XT)
   • Farm (RT)
3. the Landfilling Area is 251.55 acres
4. the Vacant Industrial Land value rate, without additional value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, is $5,031.73 per acre
5. the depreciated Cost of Improvements on the land is $1,920,320
6. the Farm Land Area is 86.70 acres
7. the Farm Land value is $13,861.37 per acre
8. the Farm Land current value is $1,201,780

Issues for the Hearing

5Following are the issues to be determined in this proceeding:

1. Does section 43.2 require the inclusion or exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity pursuant to a current ECA?;
2. What is the current value of the Subject Property pursuant to section 43.2 for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years? and
3. Is an equity adjustment pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Act required?

Result

6The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) finds that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity permitted to occur pursuant to a current ECA.

7The correct current value of the Subject Property is $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

8No equity adjustment is required by section 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

9The Subject Property is a single parcel of land of 735.71 acres, which includes 251.55 acres on which landfilling is permitted to occur pursuant to an ECA. The remaining 484.16 acres were described at the hearing as buffer land. Of those 484.16 acres of buffer land, a portion of 86.7 acres is farm land farmed by a tenant farmer.

Issue 1 – Does the interpretation of section 43.2 require the inclusion or the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity permitted to occur pursuant to a current ECA?

The Governing Legislative Scheme

10Section 19(1) of the Act (“section 19(1)”) provides that “the assessment of land shall be based on its current value.”

11Section 1(1) of the Act defines current value as follows:

“current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer;

12Section 19(2.1) of the Act enables the Minister to make regulations “providing that the current value of land must be determined in the manner specified in the regulations.”

13O. Reg. 449/16 (see Appendix 1) amended O. Reg. 282/98, the General Regulation made pursuant to the Act, to specify the manner in which the current value of the land shall be determined (section 43.2). O. Reg. 449/16 also created the new Landfill Property Class (section 14.3 of O. Reg. 282/98)

14Section 43.2 provides, in part, as follows:

Landfilling Site

43.2 (1) This section applies to any portion of land in a landfilling site, other than a closed landfilling site, that is used exclusively for landfilling activities or that contains a closed landfill cell.

(2) For the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years, the current value of the land shall be determined as if it were vacant industrial land, subject to subsections (3) and (4). …

15Section 19.2 of the Act stipulates that January 1, 2016 is the day as of which land shall be valued for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years. Section 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98 extended this valuation day to the 2021 taxation year.

The Evidence

16The expert witnesses testifying for each of the parties agreed that section 43.2 requires that the Subject Property be valued by way of a modified cost approach. This approach involves a determination of a vacant land value and the addition to this value of the depreciated cost of included improvements (buildings and structures).

17The parties agreed that the depreciated cost of the improvements permitted to be included by section 43.2(4) is $1,920,320.

18The parties agreed that the vacant industrial land value, without additional value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, is $5,031.73 per acre. The issue in dispute is whether additional value must be included for the remaining 18.6 million cubic metres of landfill capacity.

19The Appellant’s evidence of the value of vacant industrial land is best described by the following extract from the report of its valuation witness, Gregory Webb. At page 12 of his report he wrote:

5.2.3 Site Value for Cost Approach

Having established a rate per acre, I then considered the appropriate methodology to determine the land value for a landfill. In my opinion, consideration must be given as to how to appropriately reflect in the CVA (Current Value Assessment) that the property is a landfill. In the case of a landfill, the land is being used to accept waste on a volume basis of cubic meters (metric tonnes). Applying a simple flat rate per acre for valuation purposes, as would be appropriate for other types of properties, does not adequately capture the permissible use for the land, and therefore does not account for its market value as required by s. 19 of the Assessment Act.

Given landfills operate based on approved capacities, of which final grading height of the site once cells are filled being a critical variable, its necessary to address this capacity in the valuation. Essentially, the operator fills a void with cubic meters of waste until final volumes and heights are reached. This is a unique use of the land; the land is, in effect, altered within the licensing permission outlined in the ECA. In the result and simply put, a site that has ECA permissions to accept 10,000,000 tonnes (cubic meters) of waste is worth more than a site that can collect 5,000,000 because the value of the land is in respect of its permitted volume. The first site can be put to twice as much use compared to the second site despite being of comparable land size. The land value is thus a function of that permitted use. Understanding this, it becomes necessary to capture the volume metrics in order to accurately and fairly determine a current value for the landfill site.

The land value is thus a function of that permitted use. Understanding this, it becomes necessary to capture the volume metrics in order to accurately and fairly determine a current value for the landfill site.

20It was therefore a premise of Mr. Webb’s evidence, as well as the submission of the Appellant’s counsel, that a determination of current value required by section 43.2 must include market value attributable to the remaining landfilling capacity. In Mr. Webb’s words above: “…a site that has ECA permissions to accept 10,000,000 tonnes (cubic meters) of waste is worth more than a site that can collect 5,000,000…”

21To reflect the inclusion of this value, Mr. Webb used the vacant industrial land rate as required by section 43.2(2) which the parties agreed should be $5,031.73 per acre. Mr. Webb converted this to a metric rate of $12,433.40 per hectare (10,000 square metres) to derive a vacant industrial land value of $1.24 per square metre. Next, he multiplied the remaining landfill capacity of 18,676,278 cubic metres by the square metre value of vacant industrial land ($1.24 per square metre) to obtain a current value for the landfill of $23,158.584. In his opinion, this included the buffer lands because they supported the landfill. He added to this the depreciated cost of allowable improvements of $1,920,320, as well as the value of the farm land at $1,201,700, to arrive at an opinion of current value of $26,280,000 applying section 43(2).

22MPAC’s valuation evidence was provided by Christopher W. Kaufman who opined that section 43.2 is a regulated standalone methodology that does not reflect the definition of current value found in section 1 of the Act. Accordingly, he valued 484.16 acres of non-farm land at the vacant industrial land rate of $5,031.73 per acre, to produce a value of $2,531,464. He added the depreciated cost of the allowable improvements at $1,920,231, and then added the regulated cost of farm land of $1,201,700, to produce a section 43.2 opinion of current value of $6,387,000.

23The valuation evidence of Waste Management was given by Ed Richards. He agreed with Mr. Kaufman that the provisions of section 43.2 required a valuator to provide an opinion of value without reference to the definition of current value in section 1 of the Act. His opinion of value was very similar to Mr. Kaufman’s: a total section 43.2 value of $6,388,000.

The Submissions

24Ms. Kuehl, counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the modern rule of statutory interpretation would not support a textual interpretation of “vacant industrial land.” She argued that the objectives of section 19(1), that valuation be based on “current value” as defined, required an interpretation of section 43.2 that would include the market value of remaining landfill capacity.

25The Appellant’s counsel also submitted that an interpretation that would exclude the market value of the remaining capacity would lead to an absurd result that would be contrary to the usual rules of interpretation, citing para. 27 of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1988 CanLII 837 (SCC). It was argued that with MPAC’s interpretation of section 43.2, a landfill with minimal remaining capacity would have a correspondingly minimal market value to a potential purchaser but would still be valued based on more valuable vacant industrial land. In the Appellant’s submission, this would be an absurd result incompatible with section 19(1) and the definition of current value.

26Counsel for MPAC and Waste Management submitted that the text of the regulation is clear, that the valuation of vacant industrial land in this instance is a regulated methodology with no room for the addition of value attributable to remaining capacity.

The Interpretation of Regulations

27The interpretation of regulations is governed by legislation and guided by court decisions on the interpretation of statutes and regulations.

28Section 64 of the Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F (the “Legislation Act”) provides the following:

Rule of liberal interpretation

64 (1) An Act shall be interpreted as being remedial and shall be given such fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

Same

(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a regulation, in the context of the Act under which it is made and to the extent that the regulation is consistent with that Act.

29In addressing the interpretation of regulations, the Supreme Court of Canada in Amaratunga v. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2013 SCC 66 at para. 36 directed that:

[36] Regulations and orders in council must be interpreted in accordance with the modern principle of statutory interpretation: Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217, at para. 19; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, at para. 5; R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at p. 368. As Binnie J. explained in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, at para. 38, however, it is necessary, in interpreting a regulation, to consider the words granting the authority to make the regulation in question in addition to the other interpretive factors. In this regard, Binnie J. quoted the following comment by E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 247:

It is not enough to ascertain the meaning of a regulation when read in light of its own object and the facts surrounding its making; it is also necessary to read the words conferring the power in the whole context of the authorizing statute. The intent of the statute transcends and governs the intent of the regulation.

30Therefore, before attempting to interpret the words of the regulation, it is necessary to examine the words conferring the power (the enabling section) in the context of the Act. Pursuant to section 64(2) of the Legislation Act, the regulation must be consistent with enabling section in context the Act. Furthermore, an interpretation of the regulation must also be consistent with its enabling section in the context of the Act.

The Interpretation of the Act and the Enabling Section

31Section 3(1) of the Act provides that “all real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation...” Therefore, the general purpose of the Act is to provide for the assessment of real property for the purpose of taxation for municipal revenue.

32While section 19(1) and the definition of “current value” in section 1 of the Act require assessment to be based on value in an open market between appropriately motivated sellers and buyers, the provisions following section 19(1) of the Act provides exceptions to this general rule.

33Section 19(2.1) of the Act, the enabling section, provides that “the Minister may make regulations providing that the current value of land must be determined in the manner specified in the regulations” (emphasis added), and section 43.2 is such a regulation. Accordingly, in interpreting section 43.2, the Board must bear in mind that the express purpose of the enabling provision in section 19(2.1) of the Act is to authorize the Minister to prescribe a specific manner of determining the current value of land.

34Other enabling sections following section 19(1) also expressly provide for specific means of determining current value of land. For example, section 19(2)(a) of the Act authorizes the Minister to make regulations “providing that the current value of eligible land be based only on current use if the land would otherwise have a higher current value because of other uses to which the land could be put.” This is in direct conflict with the definition of current value in section 1 of the Act, which requires that values be based on the concept of “highest and best use,” described as “the governing element in establishing value for assessment purposes.” (Re Tyandaga Golf & Country Club and Town of Burlington, 1970 CanLII 251 (ON CA)).

35A further example is section 19(5) of the Act dealing with the valuation of farm land which requires that market sales to non-farmers be excluded from consideration in determining value. This is also a statutory exception to market value otherwise determined by section 19(1).

36In Slough Estates Canada Limited v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15, 2000 CanLII 5705 (ON CA) (“Slough”) at para. 23, the Ontario Court of Appeal examined the interaction between the general valuation method in section 19(1) and the methods of determining current value in the subsections following. In interpreting the predecessor section to section 19(5) of the Act, the court held that the methods of determining current value following section 19(1) were, as a matter of statutory interpretation, “wholly different valuation schemes” that ousted the methodology of section 19(1) “premised on the notion of a sale in the market.”

37This decision undermines the premise of the Appellant’s expert witness whose opinion of value was based on his interpretation that section 43.2 necessarily includes market value as required by section 19(1).

The Interpretation of Section 43.2

The Board’s Previous Decision

38In a proceeding in a previous taxation cycle involving the Subject Property, the Board agreed with the position taken by the Appellant in this proceeding. In Waste Management of Canada Corporation v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 26, 2016 CanLII 17293 (ON ARB) (the “2016 Decision”) at para. 8, the Board found that:

[8] Yes, the market value of the rights associated with the Environmental Compliance Approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19, as amended, should be reflected in the current value of a landfill (waste disposal site) under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended.

39The 2016 Decision was based on section 19(1), the general valuation rule, and was issued before O. Reg. 499/16 introducing the Landfill Property Class came into force. At the hearing that led the 2016 Decision, the Appellant and MPAC were aligned in favour of the inclusion of the market value of the operating license, and Waste Management was opposed to the inclusion.

40In the present appeals, MPAC, as a result of its interpretation of the new Landfill Regulation, is aligned with Waste Management in supporting the exclusion of the market value of the operating license.

41The Board finds that the reasoning in the 2016 Decision has been superseded by the subsequent enactment of the Landfill Regulation. As a result, the Board’s task in this decision is to decide the current value pursuant to the specific manner required by the Landfill Regulation applicable for the 2017 taxation year forward.

42Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the interpretation proposed by the respondents would lead to an absurd result, because a landfill with minimal remaining capacity, virtually worthless in market exchange value, would nonetheless be assessed based on more valuable vacant industrial land.

43The Board does not agree that this is an absurd result. On the contrary, there is merit to untethering the current value of the landfill from the value of the remaining capacity and tying it to the value of vacant industrial land.

44Landfills have limited lifespans as a function of their ultimate capacity and irreversibly decline in market value over time as a result of that declining remaining capacity, a fact acknowledged by the Appellant’s expert. His calculation of the value was a function of the remaining approved capacity of the landfill. He testified that the less capacity that remained, the less a potential purchaser would pay for it in the open market.

45Instead of having an assessment that would be perpetually declining from a high initial value to a negligible value over time, a current value tied to the value of vacant industrial land would be more level in time. The result would be a more stable assessment value for the municipality and for the property owner, a result which in the Board’s view is not absurd and within the Minister’s authority to mandate.

46Furthermore, by creating a separate property class for landfills, O. Reg. 449/16 authorizes the municipality to levy a different tax rate on the Landfill Property Class. This allows an individual tax rate to be applied to landfill properties valued in accordance with a special valuation regime, without affecting the tax rate for other classifications of properties valued using the general valuation method.

47In our view, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Slough establishes that it is the intent of the Act that special valuation regimes as exceptions to section 19(1) oust the application of section 19(1) current value and the concept of highest and best use.

48We also find the text of the regulation is precise and unequivocal. In a taxation statute, such as the Act, “those words will play a dominant role in the interpretive process.” (Placer Dome Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2006 SCC 20 at para. 21).

Finding on Issue 1

49Section 43.2 requires the exclusion of any additional value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity permitted to occur pursuant to a current ECA.

Issue 2 – What is the current value pursuant to section 43.2?

50Notwithstanding the above interpretation of section 43.2, we find that the Appellant’s evidence would not have been sufficient to establish the current value of the landfill land at $26,280,000 had section 19(1) been applicable.

51The Appellant’s expert witness testified that:

Applying a simple flat rate per acre for valuation purposes, as would be appropriate for other types of properties, does not adequately capture the permissible use for the land, and therefore does not account for its market value as required by s. 19 of the Assessment Act.

52His evidence to account for market value pursuant to section 19(1) was fundamentally based on the vacant industrial land rate of $1.24 per square metre. This value, agreed upon by all expert witnesses, was extrapolated from sales of unrelated vacant land, zoned industrial. However, his methodology did not logically establish market value as required by section 19(1).

53The Appellant’s expert simply used an area rate of $1.24 per square metre, to produces a volume rate of $1.24 per cubic metre for the remaining capacity. There was no logical connection between the area value of vacant industrial land derived from unrelated sales and the volume value of remaining waste capacity in a landfill. Accordingly, there was no evidentiary support to demonstrate that this volume rate of $1.24 per cubic metre had any relation to “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer” of a landfill as would be required by section 19(1).

54All the experts agreed that section 43.2 statutorily requires the use of a modified cost approach based on the value of “vacant industrial land.” Mr. Webb, for the Appellant, testified that the subject site was not, in fact, vacant land but that section 43.2 precluded him from examining other landfills for a determination of value.

55Mr. Webb testified that his methodology was not designed to achieve the actual market value. He felt his methodology still produced a value less that what he considered market value because his adherence to the regulated methodology precluded him from using the income or direct comparison approaches. In his opinion, “unless you include the volumetrics, you do not achieve highest and best use” which is an element of market value pursuant to section 19(1). However, Mr. Webb’s admission that section 43.2 precluded him from examining other landfills for a determination of value supports our view that section 43.2 is meant to operate independently from section 19(1).

56Despite Mr. Webb’s effort to interpret “vacant industrial land” to include the value of remaining capacity, as he testified he was compelled to do by the application of section 19(1), his methodology failed to do so. Mr. Kaufmann, MPAC’s expert witness, testified he could not understand how the area rate and the volume rate were related. We agree and find no logical relationship between the value of an area value of other vacant industrial land ($1.24 per sq. metre) and the value of a volume of remaining landfill capacity ($1.24 per cubic metre).

57Simply using the $1.24 from the area rate as the value of a cubic meter of landfill was not inconsequential: it produced $23,000,000 of Mr. Webb’s valuation. The attempt to use a value which bore no relation to section 19(1) market value on the basis that some effect, however arbitrary, must be given to section 19(1), further demonstrates the incompatibility of section 19(1) with the special valuation schemes enacted or enabled by the subsections following section 19(1).

58In light of our interpretation of section 43.2, we find the correct current value of the Subject Property is $6,387,000 and concur with the value conclusion of MPAC’s expert witness.

Finding on Issue 2

59The correct current value of the Subject Property pursuant to section 43.2 is $6,387,000.

Issue 3 – Is an equity adjustment required pursuant to [section 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html#sec44subsec3_smooth)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)?

60Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that the Board shall:

have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

61Mr. Richards, the expert for Waste Management, testified that in his review other landfills were assessed based on our interpretation of section 43.2. No evidence was tendered by the Appellant to demonstrate that a reduction in assessment from the correct regulated current value of $6,387,000 is required to make it equitable with that of other landfills.

Finding on Issue 3

62We conclude that the Appellant has not established that a reduction in assessment from the correct regulated current value of $6,387,000 is required to make it equitable with that of other landfills.

CONCLUSION

63The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the years under appeal is $6,387,000.

64The Board further finds that no equity adjustment is required to lower this value pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

65The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property for 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years be $6,387,000 apportioned as follows:

• to the Landfill Property Class (H/T): $1,265,700
• to the Commercial (New Construction) Class (X/T): $3,919,600
• to the Residential Property Class (R/T): $1,201,700

"Pierre R. Lavigne" PIERRE R. LAVIGNE MEMBER

"Jean-Paul Pilon" JEAN-PAUL PILON MEMBER

Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

APPENDIX 1

ontario regulation 449/16

made under the

Assessment Act

Made: December 12, 2016 Filed: December 13, 2016 Published on e-Laws: December 13, 2016 Printed in The Ontario Gazette: December 31, 2016

Amending O. Reg. 282/98

(GENERAL)

1. Section 2 of Ontario Regulation 282/98 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

15. The landfill property class.

2. The Regulation is amended by adding the following section:

Landfill Property Class

14.3 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and regardless of any other use of the land, the landfill property class consists of,

(a) land on which landfilling is permitted to occur pursuant to a current environmental compliance approval; and

(b) land that contains a closed landfill cell.

(2) The landfill property class does not include the following:

1. Closed landfilling sites.

2. Landfilling sites that are approved for the deposit of waste primarily generated by the owner or operator of the landfilling site in the course of the person’s business operations.

3. Landfilling sites that are approved for the receipt and deposit of hazardous waste.

(3) In this section,

“closed landfill cell” means a landfill cell that is no longer used to receive waste and that has been permanently closed in accordance with the applicable closure requirements under the Environmental Protection Act; (“cellule d’enfouissement désaffectée”)

“closed landfilling site” means a landfilling site,

(a) that has had final cover material applied to it in accordance with the applicable closure requirements under the Environmental Protection Act and in which further landfilling is not permitted by an environmental compliance approval, or

(b) that has reached its approved capacity under its environmental compliance approval; (“lieu d’enfouissement désaffecté”)

“environmental compliance approval” means an environmental compliance approval within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act; (“autorisation environnementale”)

“landfill cell” means a subcomponent within a landfilling site where waste may be deposited in accordance with the site’s environmental compliance approval; (“cellule d’enfouissement”)

“landfilling” means the disposal of waste by deposit, under controlled conditions, on land or on land covered with water, and includes compaction of the waste into a cell and covering the waste with cover material in regular intervals; (“enfouissement”)

“landfilling activities” means activities related to the operation of a landfilling site, such as depositing waste in the waste fill area, maintaining areas approved for future landfilling in the waste fill area, and operational, monitoring, maintenance and environmental control activities on the landfilling site, but does not include on-site thermal treatment of the waste or the transfer, sorting, shredding, recycling or composting of the waste; (“activités d’enfouissement”)

“landfilling site” means land for which an environmental compliance approval has been issued in respect of landfilling activities. (“lieu d’enfouissement”)

3. The Regulation is amended by adding the following sections:

Landfilling Site

43.2 (1) This section applies to any portion of land in a landfilling site, other than a closed landfilling site, that is used exclusively for landfilling activities or that contains a closed landfill cell.

(2) For the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years, the current value of the land shall be determined as if it were vacant industrial land, subject to subsections (3) and (4).

(3) The current value of the land shall be determined without regard to the value of,

(a) primary and secondary liners;

(b) structures, machinery, equipment or fixtures that are associated with primary leachate collection systems, secondary leachate collection systems or gas collection systems; and

(c) for landfilling sites that are approved for the receipt and deposit of hazardous waste, structures, machinery, equipment or fixtures that are used for pre-treatment and processing of hazardous waste.

(4) The current value of buildings and structures located on the land, other than those listed in subsection (3), shall be determined using the replacement cost new approach to valuation, less depreciation.

(5) In this section,

“closed landfill cell”, “closed landfilling site”, “environmental compliance approval”, “landfill cell”, “landfilling activities” and “landfilling site” have the same meaning as in subsection 14.3 (3); (“cellule d’enfouissement désaffectée”, “lieu d’enfouissement désaffecté”, “autorisation environnementale”, “cellule d’enfouissement”, “activités d’enfouissement”, “lieu d’enfouissement”)

“gas collection system” means facilities to detect, monitor, collect, redirect, treat, utilize or vent landfill gasses; (“système de collecte des gaz”)

“primary leachate collection system”, “primary liner”, “secondary leachate collection system” and “secondary liner” have the same meaning as in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (Landfilling Sites) made under the Environmental Protection Act. (“système primaire de collecte des lixiviats”, “membrane d’étanchéité primaire”, “système secondaire de collecte des lixiviats”, “membrane d’étanchéité secondaire”)

43.3 (1) This section applies to land in a closed landfilling site, as defined in subsection 14.3 (3).

(2) For the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years, the current value of the land shall be determined without regard to the value of the items listed in subsection 43.2 (3).

Commencement

4. This Regulation comes into force on the day it is filed.

Made by: Pris par : Le ministre des Finances, Charles Sousa Minister of Finance