Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 13, 2023
FILE NO.: DM 183593
Assessed Person(s): Amica Thornhill Inc.
Appellant(s): Amica Thornhill Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14
Respondent(s): City of Vaughan
Property Location(s): 546 Steeles Avenue West
Municipality(ies): City of Vaughan
Roll Number(s): 1928-000-010-08000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3502358, 3512601
Taxation Year(s): 2022 and 2023
Hearing Event No.: 779169
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
Parties Representative
Amica Thornhill Inc. Chantelle MacMillan
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Tom Elliott
City of Vaughan Jaroslaw Wowk
HEARD: April 11, 2023 in writing with further submissions in writing on May 12, 2023
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
INTERIM MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The City of Vaughan (the “City”) and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) are responding to the 2022 appeal brought before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) by Amica Thornhill Inc. (the “Appellant”) relating to the property at 546 Steeles Avenue West. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2023 taxation year.
2The City has brought a motion for issue estoppel. MPAC supports the City’s motion, and the Appellant opposes.
3In its reply submissions, the City relies on Manulife Ontario Property Portfolio Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2023 CanLII 39085 (ON ARB), 2023 CanLII 13877 (ON ARB) (“Manulife”). Manulife was decided by the Board on February 24, 2023 and leave to appeal the decision has been sought from the Divisional Court. The City argues that i) the Appellant makes “similar, if not identical” arguments to those made in Manulife; and ii) the Board should follow Manulife to grant the City’s motion for issue estoppel.
4The Board requested additional submissions from the parties regarding Manulife. In particular, the Board asked the parties to make submissions regarding whether the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) in these appeals should be suspended pending the resolution of Manulife at Divisional Court.
5MPAC has provided no additional submissions. The Appellant asks the Board to suspend the SOE in these appeals pending resolution of Manulife. The City opposes the Appellant’s request, arguing there are no exceptional circumstances and there is little likelihood of success at Divisional Court.
ANALYSIS
6The Board does not accept the City’s submission that exceptional circumstances are required before suspending the SOE. The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) do not require exceptional circumstances.
7In several recent decisions, the Board has suspended the SOEs of appeals where motions for issue estoppel have been brought, and Manulife is engaged: see Riocan Holdings Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2023 CanLII 39085 (ON ARB); Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03, 2023 CanLII 39086 (ON ARB); and 2046735 Ontario Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 30, 2023 CanLII 39082 (ON ARB). In these cases, the Board noted that the motions for issue estoppel, if successful, could finally determine the proceedings. The Board found that efficiency, coupled with the need to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings, required suspension of the SOEs.
8Having regard to the Board’s Rules, specifically Rules 3 and 4, and in all of the circumstances including consistency with prior decisions of the Board; that the City explicitly relies on Manulife; that the City’s motion for issue estoppel, if successful, would fully and finally determine the Appellant’s appeals; the need to avoid duplicative litigation and potentially inconsistent results; efficiency, including ensuring the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding; and fairness, the Board finds that suspending the SOE is warranted in this instance.
ORDER
9The Board orders that the SOE in these appeal proceedings is suspended until the Divisional Court proceeding in Manulife is resolved.
10Once the Divisional Court proceeding is resolved, 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.