Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: September 25, 2024
Assessed Person(s): Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc.
Appellant(s): Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03
Respondent(s): City of Ottawa
Property Location(s): 1400 Merivale Road
Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa
Roll Number(s): 0614-084-802-19400-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3508692, 3511596 and 3524642
Taxation Year(s): 2022, 2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.: 784570
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc | Paul Grosman |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Makael Nur |
| City of Ottawa | Shen Bai, Angela Severson |
REQUEST FOR: An order to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel
HEARD: August 6, 2024 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1This Motion Decision relates to a request from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) to dismiss Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc.’s (the “Appellant”) appeals based on issue estoppel.
The Parties and the Appeals
2The Appellant has appealed the assessments of 1400 Merivale Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Ottawa, pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act” or the “Assessment Act”), for the 2022 taxation year. Appeals were deemed for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act (together, the “2022 to 2024 Appeals”). The Subject Property is an office building.
3In the 2022 to 2024 Appeals, the Appellant argues that the value stated on each assessment is too high. Specifically, the Appellant argues that the value is inequitable compared to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
4MPAC and the City of Ottawa (the “City”) are responding to the 2022 to 2024 Appeals. They disagree that the value is too high.
The Appellant Appealed the Assessments for 2017 to 2018
5The 2022 to 2024 Appeals are not the first assessment appeals in relation to the Subject Property.
6The Appellant previously filed an assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year, arguing that the current value was too high. An appeal was deemed for the 2018 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act (together, the “2017 to 2018 Appeals”). MPAC and the City were respondents to the 2017 to 2018 Appeals.
7The Appellant, MPAC and the City settled the 2017 to 2018 Appeals at a current value assessment of $102,332,000 and executed Minutes of Settlement. The parties filed these Minutes of Settlement with the Board and requested that the Board issue decisions. On November 30, 2018, the Board issued decisions in relation to the 2017 to 2018 Appeals, reflecting a value of $102,332,000 in accordance with the amounts in the Minutes of Settlement (the “2017 to 2018 Decisions”).
The Appellant Appeals the Assessments for 2022 to 2024
8Pursuant to the Assessment Act, annual assessments of the Subject Property were made for 2019 to 2021, reflecting a current value of $102,332,000. These assessments were not appealed.
9The current value reflected on the 2022 assessment was $102,332,000.
10The Appellant appealed this 2022 assessment of $102,332,000 and, as noted above, appeals were deemed for 2023 and 2024. These appeals are the 2022 to 2024 Appeals that are the subject of this Motion Decision.
MPAC Brings a Motion for Issue Estoppel
11MPAC has brought this motion to dismiss the 2022 to 2024 Appeals based on issue estoppel and abuse of process. Namely, MPAC argues that the issue in dispute in the 2022 to 2024 Appeals is the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016, which was already decided in the 2017 to 2018 Decisions. MPAC argues that the Appellant should be estopped from relitigating this issue.
12The City supports MPAC’s request. The Appellant opposes it.
13This Motion Decision reflects the Board’s consideration of MPAC’s request.
Result
14For the reasons that follow, the Board grants MPAC’s motion and dismisses the 2022 to 2024 Appeals.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Request for an Administrative Suspension
Appellant’s Submissions
15The Appellant has requested that the Board administratively suspend the 2022 to 2024 Appeals pending the outcome of two matters: first, a leave to appeal application before the Court of Appeal for Ontario relating to the Divisional Court decision in Manulife Ontario Property Inc. v. MPAC and Ottawa (City), 2024 ONSC 1047 (“Manulife”); and second, a Request for Review of the Board’s decision in World Exchange Plaza Holding v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03, 2024 CanLII 47644 (ON ARB) (“World Exchange Plaza”).
Findings
16The Board denies the Appellant’s request, finding it is moot because the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in Manulife on September 6, 2024 and the Request for Review of World Exchange has been withdrawn. This is consistent with the Board’s decision in Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03, 2024 CanLII 87540 (ON ARB) (“Canadian Leaseback”) at paragraph 15.
ISSUES
17The Board notes that the law, evidence and submissions are nearly identical to the law, evidence and submissions discussed in Canadian Leaseback.
18The following issues will be addressed on this motion:
Are the preconditions to issue estoppel met in this case?
If the preconditions to issue estoppel are met, ought the Board apply issue estoppel, as a matter of discretion?
Does abuse of process apply and, if it does, ought the Board apply it?
Issue 1 - Are the preconditions to issue estoppel met in this case?
Applicable Law
19The Board has comprehensively outlined the law that applies to issue estoppel in many recent decisions: see for example ARI STC GP Inc. v Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 116834 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 31 to 32 leave to appeal to Divisional Court denied ARI STC GP INC. v. MPAC, 2024 ONSC 3663; Manulife Ontario Property Portfolio Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2023 CanLII 39085 (ON ARB), 2023 CanLII 13877 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 13 to 14, upheld by Divisional Court in Manulife Ontario Property Inc. v. MPAC and Ottawa (City), 2024 ONSC 1047 at paragraphs 17 to 39 (“Manulife Divisional Court”), leave to appeal Manulife Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied in Manulife Ontario Property Portfolio Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (6 September 2024), Court of Appeal File No. COA-24-OM-0071 (Ont. C.A.).
20The Board adopts and relies on that law in this Motion Decision.
21To summarize, the three criteria that must be met for issue estoppel to apply are:
The same question has been decided.
The decision said to create the estoppel was final; and
The parties to the decision were the same parties as those to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised.
Evidence and Submissions of the Parties
22MPAC and the City have made nearly identical submissions as were made in Canadian Leaseback. MPAC argues, and the City agrees, that the requirements for issue estoppel are met. They submit:
That the question in the 2022 to 2024 Appeals is the same question that was decided in the 2017 to 2018 Appeals, namely, what is the 2016 current value assessment for the Subject Property?;
That the 2017 to 2018 Decisions were final; and
That the parties to the 2017 to 2018 Appeals were the same as the 2022 to 2024 Appeals, namely Canadian Leaseback (GP) Inc., MPAC and the City of Ottawa.
23The Appellant’s submissions are also virtually identical to those made in Canadian Leaseback. Namely, the Appellant focuses its argument on the first requirement for issue estoppel and submits that the 2022 to 2024 Appeals raise a new and novel issue that was not at issue in the 2017 to 2018 Appeals – namely, the Assessment to Sale Ratio in relation to the equity of the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years.
Findings on Issue 1
24The Board adopts and relies on the analysis and findings in Canadian Leaseback at paragraphs 22 to 24, in their entirety. Namely, the Board accepts MPAC’s submissions and finds that the three requirements for issue estoppel are met in this case.
Issue 2 - If the preconditions to issue estoppel are met, ought the Board apply issue estoppel, as a matter of discretion?
Evidence and Submissions of the Parties
25The Appellant’s submissions on the exercise of discretion are virtually identical to those in Canadian Leaseback at paragraph 25.
26MPAC and the City have also raised virtually identical arguments to those made in Canadian Leaseback at paragraph 26.
Findings on Issue 2
27The Board adopts and relies on the analysis and findings in Canadian Leaseback at paragraph 27, in their entirety.
28The Board concludes it will apply issue estoppel to this case.
Issue 3 - Does abuse of process apply and, if it does, ought the Board apply it?
29Having decided to apply issue estoppel in this case, the Board will not consider the arguments relating to abuse of process.
CONCLUSION
30The Board finds that the three preconditions to issue estoppel are met, and exercises its discretion to apply issue estoppel in this case.
ORDER
31The Board orders that the 2022 to 2024 Appeals are dismissed.