Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 05, 2025
FILE NO.: DM 187592
Assessed Person(s): Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc.
Appellant(s): Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03
Respondent(s): City of Ottawa
Property Location(s): 3714-3858 Innes Road
Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa
Roll Number(s): 0614-600-205-00915-00000
Appeal Number(s): 3481885, 3486570, 3511819 and 3524634
Taxation Year(s): 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.: 779291
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc. | Noah Gordon |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Carrie Carone |
| City of Ottawa | Angela Severson Shen Bai |
REQUEST FOR: An order to dismiss the appeals due to issue estoppel and abuse of process
HEARD: February 21, 2025 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
The Parties and the Request
1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is asking the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to dismiss Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc.’s (the “Appellant”) appeals relating to the 2021 to 2024 property assessments of 3714-3858 Innes Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Ottawa (the “Subject Appeals”). The Appellant owns the Subject Property, which is a big box shopping centre. MPAC is responding to the Subject Appeals.
2MPAC says the Subject Appeals should be dismissed for two reasons: first, that issue estoppel precludes the Appellant from litigating the Subject Appeals; and second, that the Subject Appeals are an abuse of the Board’s process.
3The Appellant opposes MPAC’s motion. The City of Ottawa, responding to the Subject Appeals alongside MPAC, supports it.
Result
4The Board will not adjudicate MPAC’s motion at this time. Instead, the Board directs that all disputes regarding the application of issue estoppel and abuse of process be addressed at the hearing of the Subject Appeals if the Subject Appeals are not otherwise resolved by the parties.
BACKGROUND
Motion to Dismiss is Suspended
5This motion to dismiss was originally scheduled to be heard on April 25, 2023. Pursuant to a Board Order dated May 4, 2023, Riotrin Properties (Belcourt) Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03, 2023 CanLII 39086 (ON ARB), the Schedule of Events in the Subject Appeals, including MPAC’s motion to dismiss, was suspended pending resolution of Manulife Ontario Property Portfolio Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2023 CanLII 39085 (ON ARB), 2023 CanLII 13877 (ON ARB) and National Car Rental (Canada) Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 53352 (ON ARB) at Divisional Court.
Updated Submissions
6The suspension was lifted, and the Board gave the parties an opportunity to make updated submissions on MPAC’s motion in January and February 2025. The motion to dismiss was rescheduled for February 21, 2025.
7The Appellant provided its updated submissions by email dated January 29, 2025. In this email, the Appellant outlined certain “physical changes occurring after March 30, 2023” at the Subject Property; referenced a decision of the Board and a decision of the Court of Appeal released in 2024; and outlined a series of “relevant facts” that were not previously provided as evidence on this motion. The Appellant did not provide affidavit evidence in support of these “relevant facts.”
8MPAC and the City of Ottawa filed a joint response via email dated February 5, 2025. They argued, among other things, that the Appellant’s updated submissions were outside the scope of the Board’s direction permitting updated submissions on this motion.
9The Appellant filed a reply via email dated February 18, 2025. This reply indicated that the Appellant had retained new counsel. The reply email consisted of 57 paragraphs worth of submissions with three supporting affidavits containing new evidence. This new evidence includes a statement from a property tax consultant that she erred in providing earlier evidence on this motion. Namely, in an earlier affidavit for the Appellant, this property tax consultant stated that the Appellant signed Minutes of Settlement resolving appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years. Her new evidence is that the Appellant did not sign Minutes of Settlement resolving appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Issue – Should the Board adjudicate this motion at an interim stage?
10The parties have advanced specific arguments on this motion relating to issue estoppel and abuse of process.
11However, the Board has been presented with new evidence, in reply as part of the Appellant’s updated submissions, that causes the Board to consider whether it is prepared to decide MPAC’s request at this time, on the evidentiary record before it.
12The Appellant has presented new evidence in reply, appearing to contradict earlier affidavit evidence, that it may not have resolved appeals relating to the 2017 to 2019 taxation year assessments. MPAC relies on the resolution of the 2017 to 2019 appeals to support its motion for issue estoppel and abuse of process. MPAC has not been afforded an opportunity to present evidence on this issue because the Appellant articulated its submissions in detail for the first time in its updated reply.
13The Board finds that resolution of the 2017 to 2019 assessment appeals is central to issue estoppel and abuse of process. Resolving the dispute would require evidentiary findings beyond the scope of what the Board is prepared to make at this interim stage based on the evidence and submissions before it. For this reason, the Board finds it is premature to determine the issue estoppel and abuse of process questions at this time.
ORDER
14The Board orders that MPAC’s motion is dismissed at this time, without prejudice to MPAC raising these issues at the hearing of the Subject Appeals.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER VICE-CHAIR Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb```