1465497 Ontario Inc v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2024 CanLII 93035

Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 25, 2024

FILE NO.: DM 186851

Assessed Person(s): 1465497 Ontario Inc; 1447612 Ontario Inc

Appellant(s): 1465497 Ontario Inc; 1447612 Ontario Inc

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s): Town of East Gwillimbury

Property Location(s): 18930 Yonge Street and 18898 Yonge Street

Municipality(ies): Town of East Gwillimbury

Roll Number(s): 1954-000-884-91000-0000; 1954-000-884-96000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3519528, 3519529, 3525356 and 3525433

Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 784685

Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties and Counsel/Representative

1465497 Ontario Inc; 1447612 Ontario Inc Peter Bajc

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Terry Kroi

Town of East Gwillimbury Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: An order to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel

HEARD: August 27, 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 1465497 Ontario Inc. and 1447612 Ontario Inc.’s (the “Appellants”) appeals based on issue estoppel.

The Parties and the Appeals

2The Appellants have appealed the assessments of 18898 and 18930 Yonge Street (the “Subject Properties”) in the Town of East Gwillimbury, pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act” or the “Assessment Act”), for the 2023 taxation year. Appeals were deemed for the 2024 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act (together, the “2023 to 2024 Appeals”). The Subject Properties are used to operate a private airport/hangar known as the Holland Landing Airpark. The Appellants own the Subject Properties.

3In the 2023 to 2024 Appeals, the Appellants argue that the value stated on each assessment is too high. Specifically, the Appellants argue that the values are inequitable compared to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

4MPAC is responding to the 2023 to 2024 Appeals. MPAC disagrees that the values are too high.

5The Town of East Gwillimbury (the “Town”) is a statutory party to the 2023 to 2024 Appeals, but has not responded.

The Appellants Appealed the Assessments for 2019 to 2022

6The 2023 to 2024 Appeals are not the first assessment appeals in relation to the Subject Properties.

7The Appellants previously appealed the assessments of the Subject Properties for the 2019 taxation year, arguing that the current values were too high. Appeals were deemed for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act (together, the “2019 to 2022 Appeals”). MPAC and the Town were respondents to the 2019 to 2022 Appeals.

8The parties settled the 2019 to 2022 Appeals at a current value assessment of $957,000 for 18898 Yonge Street and $3,316,000 for 18930 Yonge Street, and executed Minutes of Settlement. They filed these Minutes of Settlement with the Board and requested that the Board issue decisions. On March 10, 2023, the Board issued decisions in relation to the 2019 to 2022 Appeals, reflecting a value of $957,000 for 18898 Yonge Street and $3,316,000 for 18930 Yonge Street, in accordance with the amounts in the Minutes of Settlement (the “2019 to 2022 Decisions”).

The Appellants Appeal the Assessments for 2023 to 2024

9Pursuant to the Assessment Act, annual assessments of the Subject Properties were made for the 2023 taxation year, reflecting the current values from the 2019 to 2022 Decisions.

10The Appellants appealed these 2023 assessments and, as noted above, appeals were deemed for 2024. These appeals are the 2023 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 2023 to 2024 Appeals based on issue estoppel and abuse of process. Namely, MPAC argues that the issue in dispute in the 2023 to 2024 Appeals is the current value of the Subject Properties as of January 1, 2016, which was already decided in the 2019 to 2022 Decisions. MPAC argues that the Appellants should be estopped from relitigating this issue.

12The Appellants oppose MPAC’s request. The Town has not made submissions on this motion.

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 2023 to 2024 Appeals.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Request for an Administrative Suspension

Appellants’ Submissions

15The Appellants have requested that the Board administratively suspend the 2023 to 2024 Appeals pending the outcome of 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 Appellants’ request, finding it is moot because the Request for Review of World Exchange Plaza 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:

1. Are the preconditions to issue estoppel met in this case?

2. If the preconditions to issue estoppel are met, ought the Board apply issue estoppel, as a matter of discretion?

3. 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:

1. The same question has been decided.

2. The decision said to create the estoppel was final; and

3. 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 argues that the requirements for issue estoppel are met. MPAC submits:

1. That the question in the 2023 to 2024 Appeals is the same question that was decided in the 2019 to 2022 Appeals, namely, what is the 2016 current value assessment for the Subject Property?;

2. That the 2019 to 2022 Decisions were final; and

3. That the parties to the 2019 to 2022 Appeals were the same as the 2023 to 2024 Appeals, namely the Appellants, MPAC and the Town.

23The Appellants submit that they are presenting new evidence in the 2023 to 2024 Appeals. The Appellants submit that they are not trying to relitigate or reopen the 2019 to 2022 Appeals, but they have presented new evidence that was not pled in the Statement of Issue for the 2019 to 2022 Appeals – namely, “determining the correctness of the assessed value by testing the equity of the market value employing an Assessment to Sales Ratio study with 10 comparable sales in respect to the 2023 and 2024 assessments”.

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 Appellants submit that the Board should not apply issue estoppel as it would create an injustice in this case.

26MPAC submits that it is in the interest of justice to apply issue estoppel to the 2023 to 2024 Appeals, as to do otherwise would undermine the public interest in finality of assessment appeals. MPAC also argues that there is no suggestion of impropriety, unfairness or failure of natural justice.

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 2023 to 2024 Appeals are dismissed.