Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
May 05, 2023
FILE NO.:
DM 183745
Assessed Person(s):
Riocan Holdings Inc.
Appellant(s):
Riocan Holdings Inc.
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s):
City of Burlington
Property Location(s):
2010 Appleby Line
Municipality(ies):
City of Burlington
Roll Number(s):
2402-090-902-00203-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3481213, 3489124, 3512798
Taxation Year(s):
2021, 2022, 2023
Hearing Event No.:
779474
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
Parties
Representative
Riocan Holdings Inc.
Amanda Myers
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Carrie Carone
City of Burlington
Submissions not received
HEARD:
May 1, 2023 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Carly Stringer, Member
INTERIM MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") is responding to appeals brought before the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") by Riocan Holdings Inc. (the "Appellant") relating to the property at 2010 Appleby Line in the City of Burlington.
2MPAC has brought a motion for issue estoppel. The Appellant opposes the motion.
3The Appellant has asked the Board to suspend the Schedule of Events ("SOE") in these appeal proceedings pending resolution of Manulife Ontario Property Portfolio Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2023 CanLII 13877 (ON ARB) ("Manulife"), for which leave to appeal has been sought to the Divisional Court.
4MPAC opposes the Appellant's request, arguing that a suspension of the SOE will result in a backlog of appeals, halting the efficient resolution of property assessment appeals before the Board.
5The Board has reviewed the materials on this motion, and it appears that Manulife is engaged. The Board notes that MPAC's motion for issue estoppel, if successful, could finally determine the proceeding. Depending on the outcome at Divisional Court in Manulife, this could lead to multiple hearings in the form of requests for review. Having regard to Rules 3 and 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Board finds that efficiency, as well as ensuring the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding, requires suspension of the SOE in this case.
ORDER
6The Board orders that the Schedule of Events in these appeal proceedings is suspended until the Divisional Court proceeding in Manulife is resolved.
7Once the Divisional Court issues a decision, the Board will lift the suspension of the SOE and provide the parties with amended due dates for all events that have not yet occurred prior to the suspension.