Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
April 23, 2025
FILE NO.:
ID 187794
Assessed Person(s):
Vale Canada Limited; Glencore Canada Corporation; Xstrata Canada Corporation
Appellant(s):
City of Greater Sudbury
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 30
Respondent(s):
City of Greater Sudbury
Property Location(s):
See Schedule A
Municipality(ies):
City of Greater Sudbury
Roll Number(s):
See Schedule A
Appeal Number(s):
See Schedule A
Taxation Year(s):
2017 to 2025
Hearing Event No.:
785167
Legislative Authority:
Sections 33, 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Glencore Canada Corporation (formerly Xstrata Canada Corporation)
Kathleen Poole, Lauren Lackie and Karina Wong
Vale Canada Limited
Phillip Sanford and Belinda Schubert
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Sarah Corman and Hilary Brown
City of Greater Sudbury
Richard Minster and Dan Rosman
HEARD:
October 28 to November 20, 2024 by video conference, with written submissions on various dates in February and March 2025.
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair
INTERIM DECISION
OVERVIEW
The Subject Appeals
1The City of Greater Sudbury (the “City” or “Greater Sudbury”) is appealing the current value assessments of eight mining properties for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). These eight properties, and the values reflected on the applicable assessments, are listed in Schedule A to this Decision (the “Eight Properties”). Four of the properties – Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, Totten Mine, Levack Mine and Coleman Mine – are owned by Vale Canada Limited (“Vale”). The other four properties – Craig Mine, Fraser Mine, Nickel Rim South Mine and Strathcona Mill – are owned by Glencore Canada Corporation (“Glencore”).
2The City says that the current values reflected on the assessments are too low, and asks the Board for a significant increase.
3Glencore, Vale, and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) are responding to the City’s appeals. They are asking the Board to confirm the values provided by MPAC’s expert witnesses.
The Eight Properties
4The Eight Properties are mining properties located within the City’s municipal boundaries. The Eight Properties include extractive mine sites, a mill, and a refinery. They range in land area – the smallest is just under 10 acres while the largest is over 2,000 acres.
5The Eight Properties contain multiple improvements of various sizes and types of construction that facilitate extractive and industrial uses, including office buildings, processing facilities, hoist houses, headframes, and storage warehouses. The Eight Properties have also been improved by asphalt roads, parking lots, fences, and guardrails.
6Except for the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, seven of the Eight Properties are in rural areas around Greater Sudbury.
Result
7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that MPAC has provided the best evidence and accepts MPAC’s expert evidence of current value of the Eight Properties.
Areas of Agreement and Disagreement
8Pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Assessment Act”) the Board must decide the following two issues:
Issue 1: What is the correct current value for each of the Eight Properties for the years under appeal?
Issue 2: Should an equitable adjustment to these current values be made and, if so, how much?
9The parties agree, and the Board accepts, that the Highest and Best Use of the Eight Properties is their current use as mining lands, or mine-related processing facilities. The parties further agree, and the Board accepts, to value the Eight Properties using the Cost Approach valuation methodology.
10The Cost Approach “is a theoretical breakdown of the property into land and building components”, see The Appraisal of Real Estate, Third Edition: page 17.1. In this instance, it requires a valuator to take several steps:
Determine the cost of reconstructing any structures, buildings, yardwork, and other improvements on the Eight Properties (“Reproduction Cost New” or “RCN”);
Identify and quantify all forms of depreciation, then apply a deduction for depreciation to the RCN;
Determine the value of the land;
Add the value of the land to the depreciated RCN.
11The parties disagree regarding the quantum of RCN and what should be included in calculating that amount; depreciation in the form of Excess Operating Costs for buildings; physical depreciation of roads; and the value of the land. The parties generally agree on all other forms of depreciation, including excess capital costs and external obsolescence.
Issues for the Hearing
12To decide Issue 1, the Board must address the following issues in dispute between the parties:
What is the Reproduction Cost New of improvements on each of the Eight Properties?
What is the appropriate allowance for Excess Operating Costs?
What amount of physical depreciation applies to roads?
What is the land value?
13To decide Issue 2, the Board must determine:
Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
If not, should an equitable reduction be made and, if so, how much?
ANALYSIS
Introduction
14All parties and expert witnesses agreed that valuing the Eight Properties is a very challenging exercise.
15The Board heard and considered evidence from 12 witnesses over four weeks of hearing time. The Board has also reviewed and analysed thousands of pages of documents including expert reports, witness statements, transcripts, and legal submissions. Therefore, while the Board has considered all the evidence and submissions in detail, it will not provide an exhaustive recounting of evidence and submissions in this decision.
Issue 1 – What is the correct current value of each of the Eight Properties for the years under appeal?
a) What is the Reproduction Cost New of improvements on each of the Eight Properties?
Evidence and Submissions on Issue 1(a) – Reproduction Cost New of Improvements
16MPAC costed improvements using its Automated Cost System (“ACS”). While the vast majority of MPAC’s costing was accepted by the City, the City challenges it in a few specific areas.
17The City submits that ACS understates the RCN of some of the buildings on the Eight Properties with respect to structural steel. The City’s expert testified that the steel cost rates reflected in ACS are too low, and that MPAC’s experts erred in choosing the rates. The City further submits that MPAC has failed to properly value a number of items, including:
roads on all Eight Properties;
two large process gas surge tanks (“surge tanks”) located at Vale’s Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery;
fences and guardrails at Vale’s Totten Mine; and
a headframe at Vale’s Coleman Mine (the “Coleman Headframe”).
18MPAC submits that ACS provides a reasonable estimate of RCN, and that the cost rates in ACS are accurate. MPAC further submits that its expert witnesses used the same methodology as they applied to the assessment of all mining properties in Greater Sudbury, including the six mining properties at issue in Vale Canada Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 30, 2022 CanLII 48461 (ON ARB) (“Vale 2022”).
19MPAC submits that the City’s proposed RCN values are within 2-7% of MPAC’s values, which demonstrates the reasonableness of MPAC’s estimates. MPAC disagrees that steel cost rates in ACS are too low and that its experts misapplied the rates. MPAC also submits that the City’s evidence on steel rates is based on combining selected 2016 data with 2012 height adjustments, which is not reliable or correct. With respect to roads, MPAC’s experts provided evidence that they costed all asphalt on the Eight Properties, which included roads. With respect to surge tanks at Vale’s Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, MPAC says that it is not its practice to value surge tanks, as they are exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act. Alternatively, MPAC submits that its experts’ costing of the surge tanks is more reasonable than the City’s. With respect to fences and guardrails at Vale’s Totten Mine, MPAC says it is reasonable to ascribe a value but disagrees with the City’s costing. Finally, MPAC says that its experts correctly costed the Coleman Headframe.
20Glencore submits that MPAC’s RCN is reasonable. Glencore provided expert evidence in support of this position, including a costing using the Marshall and Swift cost estimator that, Glencore submits, was within a reasonable range of MPAC’s ACS costing. Glencore further submits that the value of roads is captured in MPAC’s land value. According to Glencore, accepting the City’s methodology with respect to roads would be inequitable and would result in double-counting.
21Vale submits that MPAC’s ACS rates are generally reasonable. In support of its position, Vale relies on evidence from experts who agreed with Glencore’s expert opinion that MPAC’s costing was in a reasonable range of a Marshall and Swift costing. Further, Vale’s experts opined that they generally agree with ACS and find it to be the most appropriate for assessment purposes in Ontario.
22With respect to valuing roads, Vale submits that roads were captured in MPAC’s land value, and it would be double counting to include road value in the RCN. With respect to the surge tanks at the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, Vale’s experts opined that it is common practice for MPAC not to include the value of the machinery and equipment used for manufacturing, smelting, or obtaining minerals in the assessment as they are exempt from taxation. Vale agrees with the value of the surge tanks as determined by MPAC. With respect to fences and guardrails at the Totten Mine, Vale submits that adding a value for fences and guardrails risks double-counting if their value is included in the land rate, and that the City has not established that the fences and guardrails it proposes to add to the value of the Totten Mine are, in fact, on the Totten Mine assessed parcel and not on adjacent parcels of land. Finally, Vale submits that MPAC properly costed the Coleman Headframe.
Findings on Issue 1(a) – Cost New of Improvements
23Given that Glencore and Vale support MPAC’s evidence and position, the Board focuses its findings on evidence provided by MPAC and the City.
24The Board finds that MPAC’s experts provided a detailed and transparent costing of each component of every structure on the Eight Properties. The Board finds that MPAC’s experts provided sound and reliable evidence using ACS, a recognized cost estimator. As outlined below, the Board finds that the City’s expert’s evidence does not establish that MPAC’s costing analysis is incorrect or unreasonable. The Board prefers MPAC’s evidence to the City’s evidence. The Board finds that MPAC’s evidence regarding RCN is the best available evidence on this issue, subject to the Board’s findings below with respect to adding the value of surge tanks.
25As the City largely accepted MPAC’s costing, save and except several specific issues, the Board addresses each of the discrete issues raised by the City.
i) Steel Rates
26The City submits that ACS undervalues heavy steel. The City says that ACS rates for heavy steel are less than the steel rates provided to MPAC by Hanscomb Limited, the third party construction cost consultant retained by MPAC to provide construction cost information for ACS. The City also argues that ACS does not properly adjust for height, as the longer and heavier steel required for taller buildings is more expensive.
27The Board finds as follows:
The Board does not accept the City’s submission that ACS undervalues heavy steel because ACS rates are lower than the rates that Hanscomb Limited provided to MPAC. The Board finds that MPAC’s experts and Glencore’s expert satisfactorily explained that the difference between ACS and Hanscomb Limited rates results from a curve for strength of steel that is applied in ACS. Glencore’s expert confirmed that the datapoints used to draw the line of best fit came from Hanscomb Limited. While the City argues that MPAC has not provided evidence regarding the nature of the curve applied, the Board does not accept this submission. The Board finds that MPAC’s experts and Glencore’s expert provided a satisfactory explanation for the curve that is in line with the evidence to be expected of any expert using a recognized cost estimator to provide an opinion of value.
The Board does not accept the City’s submission that ACS does not properly apply a height adjustment to reflect the increased cost of the longer and heavier steel required in taller buildings. The Board finds that MPAC’s experts confirmed and demonstrated how they determined the appropriate steel to use when costing structural steel assemblies, which included considering height, along with bay and span, to determine the applicable weight of steel which affects the rate.
The Board finds that the City’s evidence regarding the costs of heavy steel is not the best evidence. The City’s expert proposed that the Board take the Hanscomb Limited rates for heavy steel and apply a height adjustment that MPAC used for the 2012 general reassessment. The Board does not accept this approach for three reasons. First, the Board finds that the City’s expert did not satisfactorily explain why a 2012 adjustment should apply to a determination of value for January 1, 2016, nor did he independently verify that the 2012 adjustment was correct. Second, the Board finds that MPAC’s experts adequately explained that for the 2012 general reassessment, the height adjustment was shown as a separate line item whereas the 2016 height adjustment was run on a curve in the background, such that applying the 2012 height adjustment could result in double-counting. Third, the Board does not accept using heavy steel rates provided directly from Hanscomb Limited. Glencore’s expert and the Glencore/Vale expert provided evidence regarding the inappropriateness of importing a rate from one source into another cost estimator’s analysis without the adjustments and calculations that are “running in the background” specific to each cost estimator. The Board accepts and relies on this evidence. The City has not satisfied the Board that it is appropriate and necessary to use the Hanscomb Limited rate for heavy steel when the remainder of the improvements are costed using ACS rates.
28The City also challenges the ACS costing for pre-engineered steel, arguing that ACS rates are for small shed-like buildings and should not be applied to large mining buildings, and that ACS fails to account for height adjustments for pre-engineered steel with a height over 12 feet. The Board finds as follows:
The Board does not accept the City’s expert’s evidence that the ACS rates for pre-engineered steel are based on small shed-like buildings. Both MPAC’s experts and Glencore’s expert confirmed that there are numerous pre-engineered building options available in the mining industry. The Board finds that the City did not contradict this evidence, nor was this evidence undermined in cross-examination. Moreover, ACS provides separate rates for pre-engineered steel framing based on light, medium, and heavy frames, which is inconsistent with a single type of simple pre-engineered shed-like building.
The Board does not accept the City’s submission that the ACS costing failed to adjust for height in pre-engineered steel buildings. MPAC’s expert testified that height adjustments for pre-engineered steel were manually added as “unspecified assemblies”. The Board finds these “unspecified assemblies” are evident in the Property Profile Reports. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s uncontested evidence and is satisfied that the height adjustment has been accounted for in MPAC’s costing of pre-engineered steel.
The Board finds that the City’s evidence regarding rates for pre-engineered steel is not the best evidence before the Board. The City’s expert added a height adjustment without removing the “unspecified assemblies” from his costing, which double counts the height adjustment. Further, the City’s expert did not satisfactorily address other costs that would affect the rate for pre-engineered steel, such as reduced labour and engineering costs. The Board finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear regarding whether the City’s proposed rates for pre-engineered steel included adjustments for reduced assembly costs, which would otherwise be accounted for in ACS.
29The Board finds that the City’s evidence does not establish that MPAC’s evidence is incorrect or based on unreasonable assumptions. The Board prefers MPAC’s evidence and finds that MPAC’s evidence regarding ACS steel rates is the best evidence available.
ii) Roads
30The City submits that MPAC’s experts did not properly cost roads on the Eight Properties.
31Glencore and Vale experts testified that the cost of roads is included in the land value. The Board does not accept this evidence. It is inconsistent with the Cost Approach, wherein the cost of improvements is added to the vacant land rate. It is also inconsistent with MPAC’s expert evidence that they in fact costed all asphalt on the Eight Properties.
32With respect to the City’s submission that MPAC did not properly account for the quantity of roads and only valued parking lots on the Eight Properties, the Board finds that:
The City alleges that the Board cannot know how much pavement was valued, because the quantity of scale adjustments in ACS are done at the quantity level, not at the rate level. This means that when a quantity adjustment is applied in ACS, it is the quantity that changes rather than the rate. While it might be more appropriate if ACS did not account for quantity adjustment in this way, that does not necessarily mean that it is wrong – it is just not particularly helpful. The Board, therefore, must consider other evidence.
MPAC’s expert testified that all asphalt for roads and parking lots on the Eight Properties was costed using the “Site and Ancillary Work Asphalt” assembly in ACS. MPAC’s expert did not waver on this point in cross-examination. MPAC’s expert explained how ACS applies its rate to the area of asphalt; and explained that it is the quantity number that is adjusted. The Board accepts and relies on this evidence.
While the City submits that MPAC’s evidence was “vague” because ACS does not differentiate between “road asphalt” and “parking lot asphalt”, the Board finds there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that asphalt roads on mining properties are built to a different standard than parking lots such that it was inappropriate to apply the same rate to both. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s expert evidence that the “Site and Ancillary Work Asphalt” assembly is consistently applied to asphalt on special purpose mine properties in Ontario. The Board accepts MPAC’s evidence that this assembly accounts for the entire assembly, including site preparation, base coat, and topcoat, such that it is appropriate to be used for paved roads and parking lots. Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to support the City’s position that there should be separate rates for roads and parking lots built on the Eight Properties.
For several reasons, the Board does not accept the City’s evidence regarding the quantity of roads. It appears that the City’s expert included gravel roads and dirt roads in his measurements of paved roads, when gravel and dirt should not be costed as asphalt. The City’s expert did not seriously contest MPAC and Glencore’s evidence that he may have costed gravel and dirt roads. He confirmed that he did not personally inspect the roads and it was difficult to know for certain whether a road was asphalt or gravel or dirt using satellite imagery. Finally, the City’s expert may have included roads that were on properties not under appeal. While the Board recognizes that all parties had difficulty in ascertaining the boundaries of the Eight Properties, the Board is disinclined to rely on the City’s expert evidence given this frailty. It is for these reasons, taken together, that the Board finds that the City’s evidence is unreliable and therefore is not the best evidence regarding the quantity of roads.
33The Board does not rely on the City’s proposed cost of roads for two reasons. First, the City’s expert added his proposed cost for roads to MPAC’s costing without eliminating the value of the “Site and Ancillary Work Asphalt” assembly that MPAC applied to cost all asphalt on the Eight Properties. This could result in double-costing of roads. Second, the City’s expert used a rate for roads derived from the RS Means cost estimator. He relied on this rate on the basis that ACS “does not have rates specific to roads, and particularly not for the roads necessary to handle the heavy mining trucks which travel to the mine sites.” Per the Board’s findings above, the Board is satisfied that the “Site and Ancillary Work Asphalt” assembly in ACS is appropriate for both roads and parking lots. Moreover, the City did not provide sufficient information for the Board to understand what adjustments may or may not have been applied to the RS Means rate. This is the challenge of using one cost estimator to supplant a value into another cost estimator – it creates uncertainty in the valuation as the rate in one estimator may be reflective of certain adjustments that are not being made in the other estimator.
34The City’s expert also compared ACS rates to the costs for road resurfacing provided in a document written for Vale in 2006 called the “Coleman Road Report”. The Board places little weight on the “Coleman Road Report” data. This information reflects the 2006 cost to repair a road on a single section of a Vale property – the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that it can be used more widely for the cost of road construction on the Eight Properties, half of which are owned by Glencore, with a January 1, 2016 valuation day. Ultimately, the Board finds that the City’s evidence with respect to the cost of roads is not sufficiently reliable, and prefers MPAC’s evidence as the best evidence on this issue.
iii) Surge Tanks
35Two surge tanks are located on Vale’s Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery property. These surge tanks, constructed in 1969, are over 3,100,000 gallons in volume. The value of the surge tanks was not included in the returned assessments for Vale’s Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery.
36MPAC’s experts testified that i) the surge tanks are exempt from taxation pursuant to s. 3(1)17 of the Assessment Act, and ii) MPAC does not assess exempt machinery and equipment. MPAC states that, instead of valuing the tanks and noting them as “exempt” on the assessment roll, it simply excluded the value of the surge tanks which has the same impact on municipal taxation.
37The City’s position regarding the surge tanks has evolved over the course of the proceedings. In a pre-hearing motion, the City stated that it was asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the assessment of Vale’s Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery: see Vale Canada Limited v Greater Sudbury (City), 2024 CanLII 87542 (ON ARB) (“Vale Motion”) at paragraph 7. In their materials on the Vale Motion, the City stated explicitly that it was not asking the Board to make any determinations regarding whether the surge tanks are exempt from taxation. However, in its closing submissions following the hearing of these appeals, the City asked the Board to i) ascribe a value to the surge tanks; and ii) “plac[e] them in the taxable class as [the Board] cannot determine [tax] exemptions”.
38With respect to the value of the surge tanks, the Board finds as follows:
Section 3(1) of the Assessment Act provides that “all real property in Ontario is liable to assessment…” Section 1 of the Assessment Act defines “real property” as including “all buildings, or any part of any building, and all structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land”. Neither MPAC nor Vale suggested that these surge tanks do not fit into the Assessment Act’s definition of “real property” liable to assessment. The Board finds that the evidence supports that these surge tanks are structures erected or placed upon or affixed to the land in accordance with the definition of “real property”, and therefore the surge tanks are liable to assessment in accordance with s. 3 of the Assessment Act, absent any statutory exemption from assessment. Neither MPAC nor Vale referred the Board to a provision of the Assessment Act that would exempt the surge tanks from inclusion on the assessment of the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery. Accordingly, the Board finds that the surge tanks should be included in the assessment of the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery.
Section 19(1) of the Assessment Act provides that “[t]he assessment of land shall be based on its current value.” Section 14(1) of the Assessment Act itemizes the information that must be contained on the assessment roll. Per s. 14(1) 5, 6, 7 and 8, the assessment roll must contain the current value of the land; the value of land liable to taxation; the value of land exempt from taxation; and the classification of the land. The Board finds that since the surge tanks must be included in the assessment of the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, they must be included in the determination of the current value of the land.
Section 40(1)(a)(i) of the Assessment Act is the basis for the Board’s jurisdiction to determine the current value of the land which, per above, includes the surge tanks.
The Board finds the City’s evidence is not the best evidence regarding the value of the surge tanks. The City’s expert used RS Means to provide a rate for an above-ground water storage tank with a volume of 1 million gallons, which was the largest capacity that he could locate. Accounting for economies of scale, he determined that the rate for a 4,000,000 gallon tank is $12,314,795.38. He then compared this to the ACS value for a steel pressurized tank of $18,048,744. Then, after “considering” the ACS rate and the RS Means rate, he estimated the cost of the surge tanks at $11,000,000 each, prior to depreciation. The Board finds that this approach, which relied heavily on appraisal judgment in landing at a value over $1,000,000 below the range of values the City’s expert could quantify, is not the best available evidence regarding value of the surge tanks.
The Board prefers and relies on MPAC’s evidence as the best evidence regarding the value of the surge tanks. MPAC’s expert used a value derived from ACS based on the “reservoir” assembly, accounting for the massive size, shape, and material of the surge tanks. While MPAC’s expert evidence originally contained an error in calculation, the Board finds the error was candidly acknowledged and promptly corrected such that the Board finds the evidence reliable. The Board accepts MPAC’s expert evidence that the 30-year life table is appropriate to calculate depreciation given that it is applied to other tanks in ACS, and that it accounts for typical maintenance. The Board does not accept the City’s evidence challenging ACS depreciation – the City’s expert evidence assumed that since the surge tanks did not look like they were built in 1969, and that they house dangerous gases, they must have been well maintained such that they should be treated as constructed in 2007 and 1990 rather than 1969. The Board finds that this unsubstantiated rationale is an insufficient basis to deviate from the life tables that apply to all tanks in ACS.
For these reasons, the Board finds that the value of the surge tanks must be included in the current value of the Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, and that MPAC’s costing of the surge tanks applies.
39The Board makes the following findings with respect to the City’s request that the Board place the surge tanks “in the taxable class”:
There is no “taxable class” in the Assessment Act. The City appears to be conflating property classification - as prescribed in accordance with s. 7 and 8 of the Assessment Act and in Ontario Regulation 282/98, and a matter this Board can determine in accordance with s. 40(1)(a)(iv) of the Assessment Act - with tax liability, including the status of being a tax-exempt property pursuant to s. 3(1)17 of the Assessment Act, which is a matter over which the Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction per s. 46 of the Assessment Act. Property classification and tax liability are not the same thing.
This is reinforced by s. 14(1) of the Assessment Act. As noted above, and per s. 14(1) 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act, the assessment roll must contain the current value of the land; the value of land liable to taxation; the value of land exempt from taxation; and the classification of the land.
As noted above, the Board has jurisdiction to determine the current value of the land and the classification of the land. The City has not raised property classification as an issue in these appeals. Instead, the City has asked the Board to “place” the surge tanks in the “taxable class”. To repeat the Board’s holding from the Vale Motion: the Board does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the land, or parts of the land (i.e. the surge tanks) are “taxable”, insofar as “taxable” means exempt from or liable to taxation. Where MPAC determines that land is exempt from taxation in accordance with s. 3(1) of the Assessment Act, a party must challenge MPAC’s determination in Superior Court – not before this Board. The Assessment Act and case law could not be clearer on this point: see North America Railway Hall of Fame v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2016 CanLII 14708 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 15 and 19; Toronto (City) v E. L., 2019 CanLII 29140 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 5 and 6.
Therefore, the Board makes no determinations regarding the surge tanks and exemption from or liability to taxation.
iv) Fences and Guardrails
40With respect to the City’s submissions that fences and guardrails were not valued on the assessment of Vale’s Totten Mine property, the Board finds as follows:
All parties agreed that fences and guardrails are generally assessable. However, MPAC and the City disagree on the value to be ascribed to fences and guardrails, and the depreciation rate. Vale further submits that the City has not shown that the fences and guardrails that it seeks to have added to the current value are on the Totten Mine assessed parcel and not on adjacent properties.
Based on the evidence provided by both MPAC and the City, the Board finds that it is unclear whether the fences and guardrails identified by the City are, in fact, on the Totten Mine property. The parties have all agreed that they are using the boundaries of the properties articulated in the assessments, but based on the parties’ submissions and materials, it is not clear whether the fences and guardrails identified by the City are on the assessed parcel of Totten Mine, or on adjacent parcels that are not under appeal.
41Given that the evidence is unreliable on the location of these fences and guardrails, the Board does not rely on it. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to add value for fences and guardrails on the Totten Mine site.
v) Coleman Headframe
42The Coleman Mine is a Vale property. It is improved by the Coleman Headframe, which covers the mine shaft and equipment used to hoist ore, people, and equipment in and out of the mine.
43MPAC’s expert provided the Board with an updated costing for the Coleman Mine, and testified that he corrected two errors relating to the Coleman Headframe: its size and the thickness of a wall. MPAC’s expert testified that he revised the wall thickness from greater than 16 inches thick to between 12 and 16 inches. This resulted in a reduced rate.
44The City argues that MPAC’s expert is incorrect regarding the wall thickness of the Coleman Headframe and, accordingly, a higher ACS rate should apply. The City argues that the Coleman Headframe is greater than 16 inches thick, as evidenced by appraisal cards and building plans.
45The Board does not accept the City’s submissions regarding the wall thickness of the Coleman Headframe. The Board finds that MPAC’s expert’s evidence, that he measured the wall and it was 15 inches thick, is the best evidence in the circumstances. The Board prefers MPAC’s evidence of direct measurement compared to the City’s reliance on appraisal cards and building plans, particularly given that there was no evidence the building plans were “as built”.
46Accordingly, the Board accepts MPAC’s expert’s updated costing of the Coleman Headframe.
vi) Final Comments Regarding Reproduction Cost New
47The Board finds that MPAC’s costing using ACS is consistent with the costs independently determined by Glencore/Vale expert using the Marshall and Swift cost estimator. The Board finds that this reinforces the reasonableness of the costs derived using MPAC’s ACS.
48The Board makes one final note in relation to RCN. Even if the Board were to accept the City’s submissions and evidence, the Board finds that the MPAC analysis is reasonable. Indeed, if the Board were to accept the City’s evidence, it would result in a Cost New for each property within 2-7% of MPAC’s Cost New. The Board finds that a 2-7% difference in Cost New is within a reasonable range, particularly given the complex nature of the Eight Properties. While costing analyses are precise, they are not an exact science, as they are limited by the data available and, to some degree, require that qualitative assumptions be made.
b) What is the allowance for Excess Operating Costs?
Evidence and Submissions on Issue 1(b) – Excess Operating Costs
49Excess Operating Costs are a form of functional obsolescence associated with the additional operating costs incurred due to any inadequacy or lack of utility in the improvement. Excess Operating Costs could be extra utility costs to heat an unused building, or extra handling costs associated with inefficient layouts.
50The parties disagree regarding how to calculate and apply Excess Operating Costs to the Eight Properties.
51MPAC submits that it applied reasonable Excess Operating Cost adjustments. MPAC’s experts testified that they calculated Excess Operating Costs using the methodology from the Market Valuation Report for Special Purpose Base Metal Mining Properties. MPAC submits that there is no basis to deviate from this approach and to do so would be inconsistent with the methodology applied to other mining properties.
52The City submits that MPAC’s allowance for Excess Operating Costs should be removed for all Eight Properties. The City’s expert opined that there is no basis in fact to justify the reduction for Excess Operating Costs applied by MPAC. The City’s expert disagrees with MPAC’s experts’ approach of determining Excess Operating Costs based on the age of the building, which he characterized as a policy directive rather than based in evidence. The City’s expert stated that data is required to calculate Excess Operating Costs and, absent hard evidence supporting Excess Operating Costs, it should not be applied.
53Vale submits that MPAC’s adjustments for Excess Operating Costs are well justified. Its experts opined that, given what they saw on-site and in the absence of detailed costs, MPAC’s qualitative approach is reasonable. Vale’s experts told the Board that determining site specific costs is not feasible for many reasons, including that Vale does not have information from prior to 2017 and that accounting for all exempt equipment and machinery would render the task virtually impossible. Its experts opined that the City’s expert simply ignored an allowance for Excess Operating Costs, which they say is not appropriate.
54Glencore’s position is that MPAC’s Excess Operating Costs are appropriate and well supported in the evidence. Glencore’s expert provided evidence regarding discussions with plant operations personnel, and observations on-site regarding the design, construction and use of buildings on of the Eight Properties, that supported MPAC’s Excess Operating Cost adjustments. Glencore’s expert opined that zero Excess Operating Costs, as determined by the City’s expert, is inappropriate given the identified inefficiencies.
55Glencore also provided evidence from two fact witnesses regarding operations at its Fraser Mine and Strathcona Mill. These witnesses testified regarding operating inefficiencies at these sites, with resulting costs to Glencore.
Findings on Issue 1(b) – Excess Operating Costs
56The Board finds that MPAC’s experts, supported by Vale and Glencore experts, provided sound and reliable evidence regarding Excess Operating Costs. For the following reasons, the Board finds that MPAC’s evidence is the best available evidence on this issue, and accepts MPAC’s position regarding the appropriate allowance for Excess Operating Costs:
In this instance, with the exception of the City’s expert, all the experts testified that they observed inefficiencies on the Eight Properties that warranted an adjustment for Excess Operating Costs. Without providing an exhaustive list, the experts identified inefficiencies at the administration building at the Craig Mine; the fine ore bins and crushing plant at the Strathcona Mill; the out-of-use second headframe at the Strathcona Mill; unused portions of the sand fill plant at Strathcona Mill; the hoist house at the Craig Mine; the headframe and hoist house at the Fraser Mine; the ore bin attached to the headframe at the Fraser Mine; the truck dump building at the Nickel Rim South; the vent shaft hoist house at the Nickel Rim South; the hoist house on top of the headframe at the Coleman Mine; and, in general, all improvements at the Levack Mine, which is a largely inoperative site that is subject to care and maintenance.
This is not a case where the experts simply saw old buildings and applied Excess Operating Costs, as suggested by the City’s expert. Rather, the Board heard and accepts ample evidence from MPAC, Vale and Glencore experts that they observed inefficiencies on-site and discussed inefficiencies with site personnel, and then used their judgment to determine that buildings were inefficient resulting in Excess Operating Costs.
The Board does not accept the City’s expert premise that there should be no adjustment for Excess Operating Costs because there is insufficient evidence to substantiate an adjustment. While all the experts agreed that the preferred approach is to conduct a quantitative adjustment of the sort referenced by the City’s expert, none of the other experts) suggested that no adjustment should be made because there is insufficient data to calculate precise Excess Operating Costs. The Board does not accept that an allowance for Excess Operating Costs can only be made by quantitative analysis. This is consistent with the approach taken by the Board in General Motors of Canada Company v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2023 CanLII 12249 (ON ARB) (“General Motors”) at paragraphs 114 to 159, where both qualitative and quantitative approaches were acceptable.
Given the overwhelming evidence that a quantitative approach would be very difficult to do in the circumstances, the Board finds that a qualitative approach is warranted.
Regarding the quantum of MPAC’s adjustment, the City’s expert opined that it is improperly based on the age of the property, as a relationship between property age and Excess Operating Costs may not exist. The Board finds, based on the uncontested evidence from Glencore/Vale’s expert and Glencore’s expert, that there is a correlation between age and functional obsolescence, and that MPAC’s excess operating cost adjustment based on building age is sufficiently supported.
The Board accepts the evidence of the majority of the experts who testified that a qualitative approach to calculating Excess Operating Costs is appropriate in the circumstances. The Board further finds that MPAC’s experts provided the best evidence regarding the quantum of the Excess Operating Cost adjustment.
c) What depreciation applies to roads?
Evidence and Submissions on Issue 1(c) – Depreciation for Roads
57MPAC argues that it has applied reasonable physical depreciation adjustments to yardwork, including roads. It submits that these adjustments have been calculated using MPAC’s age/life tables built into ACS, and MPAC has uniformly applied 50% depreciation to similar asphalt across mining properties in Greater Sudbury and throughout Ontario. It submits that this adjustment is reasonable here.
58The City argues that roads should be depreciated at 10%. The City’s expert exercised his subjective judgment in opining that 10% is appropriate because the roads on the Eight Properties are in excellent condition and there is significant traffic of heavy trucks.
59Vale argues that the roads on a mine site are subject to extreme conditions and, at any point in time, a 50% depreciation allowance for roads is appropriate given their ongoing maintenance.
60Glencore argues that a 50% reduction for physical depreciation of roads is correct and consistent with other similar properties.
Findings on Issue 1(c) – Depreciation for Roads
61The City’s expert stated that his opinion of 10% depreciation was based largely on appraisal judgment, given that the roads he saw appeared to be in good shape and he assumed that the roads would be built to a high quality to accommodate the heavy mining trucks traveling on them. The City’s expert referred to the Board decision in Skycharter Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 98456 (ON ARB) at paragraph 12, where a 1% depreciation was applied to the asphalt on airport aprons. He then opined that a tenfold increase on that amount was reasonable. MPAC’s expert, supported by Glencore and Vale experts, testified that a 50% depreciation allowance for roads is appropriate because i) it is reasonable considering the nature of asphalt and conditions of these mining roads, and ii) it is the rate applied to roads on special purpose mining properties throughout Ontario.
62The Board prefers the evidence from MPAC, Glencore and Vale experts on this issue. The City’s expert led minimal evidence other than his appraisal judgment supporting 10% depreciation. He did not inspect the roads himself to determine the quality of pavement throughout the Eight Properties. There is little evidence, other than the City’s expert’s opinion, that roads must be built or maintained at a specific high standard because heavy mining trucks are traveling on them at fast speeds. Indeed, the evidence showed that mining trucks are traveling on gravel and dirt roads as well, and the City’s expert did not sufficiently substantiate his claim that mining trucks are traveling at or near highway speeds on asphalt roads throughout the Eight Properties.
63In this instance, with minimal evidence other than appraisal judgment supporting 10% depreciation, the Board finds that consistency of approach between the Eight Properties and all other special purpose mining properties in Ontario, as well as the evidence of MPAC, Glencore and Vale regarding the condition of roads on the Eight Properties, favors applying 50% depreciation to asphalt.
d) What is the land value?
Evidence and Submissions on Issue 1(d) – Land Value
64All experts agreed that the task of determining a land value is a challenging one, given that there are rarely sales of mining properties and that there are few sales of vacant industrial sites in Greater Sudbury that are of comparable size to the Eight Properties. All parties used the Direct Comparison Approach to determine the land value.
65The City submits that MPAC has significantly understated the land value. Specifically, the City submits that the key flaw in MPAC’s analysis is that MPAC’s land study relies on assessments, not market evidence, to adjust their proposed land sales for size and location. The City also provided evidence from a witness that many of MPAC’s sales are “compromised” because they fall within the jurisdiction of the Nickel District Conservation Authority.
66In support of the City’s position on land value, the City’s expert developed and applied two land rates to the acreages of seven of the Eight Properties. He applied a higher rate for developed portions of the sites, then a lower rate for “less developed land”, which was essentially the portions of the properties in their natural state. He treated Nickel Rim South a bit differently, given its extremely large size exceeding 2,000 acres. He applied the developed land rate to just over 24 acres of the site, and then applied the undeveloped land rate to 400 acres. For the remaining land, he applied a rate of $5,000 per acre, based on the rates per acre of two of the largest land sales in MPAC’s land study.
67MPAC’s experts applied a single land rate based on the land study that was accepted by the Board in Vale 2022. Specifically, MPAC’s land study analyzed 11 vacant industrial land sales in Greater Sudbury occurring between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2019, adjusted for time, size, and location. MPAC’s experts reviewed the sales from this land study, including inspecting the properties and, in many instances, speaking to the property owners. MPAC submits that the Board should accept this approach for determining the value of mining land in Greater Sudbury.
68MPAC submits that the City’s land analysis fails to adjust for location, which leads to significantly inflated land values. MPAC emphasizes that the City’s developed land rate primarily relied on sales from central Sudbury and a prime industrial park, submitting that, without a location adjustment, the City’s land rate does not assist in valuing rural land like the Eight Properties.
69Vale agrees with the overall land values derived by MPAC. Vale’s expert witness provided evidence that the land values proposed by the City are higher than is supported by market-based data.
70Glencore submits that MPAC’s land values are reasonable. Glencore’s expert witness provided evidence supporting lower land rates than those applied by MPAC.
Findings on Issue 1(d) – Land Value
71The Board finds that the City’s evidence is not the best evidence of land value, for the following reasons:
The City’s expert did not adjust the proposed land sales for location. He confirmed in cross-examination that he did not explicitly explain the lack of location adjustment in either of his expert reports, although he stated in examination in chief that the Eight Properties are “where the ore is”. The Board understood the City’s expert to be suggesting that buyers of mining land want land that is suitable for mining, such that there is not the same need for a downward adjustment for rural location as there would be for other properties. The Board finds there was insufficient data to support this assertion from the City’s expert. Indeed, it is just as plausible that buyers of industrial land for mining-related uses would prefer to be more centrally located to better access customers and services. In contrast, MPAC’s experts provided uncontested evidence that prices in rural locations in Greater Sudbury are lower than rates in central Sudbury and the Walden industrial park, where the bulk of the City’s proposed land sales were situated. The Board prefers this evidence from MPAC’s experts that “location matters”, and that an adjustment is necessary to make the City’s sales comparable to the locations of the Eight Properties, which are in predominantly rural areas of Greater Sudbury.
The Board finds that the City’s land sales from the Walden industrial park and central Sudbury are in superior locations to at least seven of the Eight Properties and had significantly higher rates per acre than sales in more rural areas. Since the City failed to apply a location adjustment, the Board finds the City’s land sales represent inflated values that do not reflect the areas where the Eight Properties are located. Accordingly, the City’s evidence is not the best evidence on land value.
With respect to the City’s land value for Nickel Rim South, the City’s expert applied a flat rate for every acre above 424 based on a sale of a 69.5 acres parcel in Thunder Bay, and an 83.3 acres parcel in North Bay, without adjustments. He did not adjust the rate for time, size, or location. He admitted “this is obviously an imprecise number”. The Board does not accept this approach – the parcels in Thunder Bay and North Bay are significantly smaller than Nickel Rim South, the sales occurred in May 2014 and March 2013, and neither parcel is from Greater Sudbury. Thunder Bay, for instance, is over 1,000 kilometres away. The Board does not accept that applying these rates – without adjustments for time, size, or location – would produce the best evidence of land value for Nickel Rim South as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.
72The Board accepts MPAC’s evidence regarding land value, and finds that it is the best evidence for the following reasons:
The Board finds that the time frame of January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019 was required to produce a large enough sample of sales. The Board finds that MPAC’s experts applied an appropriate time adjustment. Indeed, the difference between MPAC’s time adjustment and the City’s time adjustment was minor.
MPAC’s expert investigated each sale on the land study to determine if it was appropriate. This was not an instance where MPAC simply took the land study from Vale 2022 and applied it unquestioningly to this case.
The Board finds that the sales included in MPAC’s land study are appropriate. Given there were no sales of improved mining lands in Greater Sudbury, MPAC’s sales included vacant industrial lands in the Greater Sudbury area. The Board finds these are sufficiently comparable. The Board does not accept the City’s evidence that MPAC’s land sales were “compromised” due to restrictions from the Nickel District Conservation Authority. The Board finds that these restrictions are not relevant, based on the uncontested evidence that much of Greater Sudbury is within an area regulated by the Nickel District Conservation Authority, including several of the City’s land sales and most of the Eight Properties; and that most property owners confirmed to MPAC’s expert that the Nickel District Conservation Authority restrictions were not a factor that influenced the price they paid for their properties.
While the parcels in MPAC’s land study are very small in area resulting in very significant size adjustments, the City’s expert also relied on numerous small parcels in its land valuation. The Board is satisfied that there were no sales of comparably large vacant industrial or mining lands in the boundaries of Greater Sudbury, and reliance on small parcels with size adjustments was necessary given the dearth of market evidence.
The Board does not accept the City’s challenge to MPAC’s size adjustment. MPAC’s expert testified that the size adjustment was derived from MPAC’s land curve in its Market Valuation Report: Valuing Vacant Commercial and Vacant Industrial Land in Northern Ontario dated August 2017, based on extensive market data. The Board accepts MPAC’s expert’s uncontested evidence that this curve was similar to other size curves he has created and analyzed. The Board also finds that MPAC’s curve was similar to the size curves in the City’s analysis. Finally, the Board finds that consistency of approach favours accepting MPAC’s size adjustment, given MPAC’s task of assessing all properties in Ontario: see General Motors at paragraph 93. Overall, the Board accepts MPAC’s size adjustment.
The primary difference between the City’s evidence and MPAC’s evidence was the location adjustment. As noted above, the Board finds that a location adjustment is required for the predominantly rural Eight Properties, based on the generally uncontested evidence from MPAC’s experts that there is a notable difference in price per acre of properties that are similar in size but differ in location across Greater Sudbury. The City’s expert did not provide a location adjustment. The only evidence with respect to location adjustment is MPAC’s expert evidence.
To summarize, MPAC used its land model to “predict” a sale price for its 11 land sales if those sales were the same acreage as each of the Eight Properties, and then divided the assessment rate per acre of each of the Eight Properties by the predicted sale price/acre of each of its 11 land sales to derive a “location adjustment factor”. The City challenges MPAC’s location adjustment on the basis that MPAC used assessment values rather than sales evidence. While MPAC did use its land model to adjust the sale prices in its land study to derive a location adjustment, MPAC provided the extensive market data in support of its land model. MPAC’s experts confirmed that its Sudbury office helps break down the sales in the model. MPAC then applied its location adjustment to the actual time-adjusted sale prices of its 11 land sales. In all of these circumstances – noting that there was no competing location adjustment from the City’s expert and favoring consistency of approach per General Motors – the Board accepts MPAC’s expert evidence as the best available evidence quantifying a location adjustment.
Finally, the Board also relies on the evidence that MPAC’s expert undertook a second sales analysis, adjusting the City’s sales for location, time, and size - and it resulted in very similar amounts to MPAC’s land study. This evidence was uncontroverted at the hearing, as the City’s expert did not address it, nor were MPAC experts cross-examined on this evidence. The Board accepts and relies on this evidence as support for MPAC’s land values.
73In all the circumstances, the Board is satisfied that MPAC has provided the best evidence of land value.
Conclusion on Issue 1
74For the reasons outlined above, the Board accepts and relies on the determinations of current value provided by MPAC’s experts.
Issue 2 - Should an equitable adjustment in these current values be made and, if so, how much?
Applicable Law
75Section 44(3) of the Assessment Act provides that the Board shall determine the current value of the land, and then “have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land”.
Evidence and Submissions of the Parties
76The parties have made extensive submissions in relation to equity. In a nutshell, MPAC, Vale, and Glencore submit that the properties that were at issue in Vale 2022 are similar to the Eight Properties. MPAC, Vale, and Glencore submit that a consistent approach to valuation amongst similar land in the vicinity promotes the goal of equity, and therefore the Board should apply the approach used by MPAC’s experts because it is consistent with the Board’s determinations in Vale 2022. Essentially, their position is that if the Board accepts the valuation approach from Vale 2022, then there is no need to adjust the assessments of the Eight Properties to make them equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
77The City does not argue that an equitable adjustment is required.
Findings on Issue 2
78The Board has accepted MPAC’s expert evidence in relation to current value. MPAC’s experts valued the Eight Properties in a manner consistent with the approach in Vale 2022. In these circumstances, no party takes the position that an equitable adjustment is necessary.
79The Board finds that an equitable reduction is not required.
CONCLUSION
80Accordingly, the Board accepts MPAC’s expert evidence of current value of the Eight Properties.
ORDER
81The Board orders that the parties shall confer and submit to the Board, within 20 days of this Interim Decision being issued, their position on the revised current value and applicable apportionments for all assessments listed in the table attached as Schedule A to this Interim Decision.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER
VICE-CHAIR
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
SCHEDULE A
Roll Number: 5307-110-002-12300-0000
Address: Waters Con 6 Lot 1
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Effective Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3242169
Vale Canada Limited
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$743,200 Commercial
$9,584,800 Large Industrial
$10,328,000
3278755
Vale Canada Limited
34
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$182,300 Commercial
3278756
Vale Canada Limited
34
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$2,351,700 Large Industrial
3314501
Vale Canada Limited
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$925,500 Commercial
$11,936,500 Large Industrial
$12,862,000
3367824
Vale Canada Limited
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$925,500 Commercial
$11,936,500 Large Industrial
$12,862,000
3410975
Vale Canada Limited
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$925,500 Commercial
$11,936,500 Large Industrial
$12,862,000
3449052
Vale Canada Limited
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$925,500 Commercial
$11,936,500 Large Industrial
$12,862,000
3490634
Vale Canada Limited
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$925,500 Commercial
$11,936,500 Large Industrial
$12,862,000
3527509
Vale Canada Limited
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$925,500 Commercial
$12,233,500 Large Industrial
$13,159,000
3527510
Vale Canada Limited
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$925,500 Commercial
$12,058,500 Large Industrial
$12,984,000
3527535
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
OCT 01, 2020
$297,000 Large Industrial
3527536
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$297,000 Large Industrial
3527537
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$297,000 Large Industrial
3536169
Vale Canada Limited
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$12,984,000 Commercial
Roll Number: 5307-120-001-01000-000
Address: 6 Totten Mine Road
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3242170
Vale Canada Limited
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
3314706
Vale Canada Limited
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
3367959
Vale Canada Limited
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
3527520
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$541,000 Commercial
3527515
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$17,000 Industrial
3527514
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$67,000 Industrial
3411136
Vale Canada Limited
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
3527521
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$541,000 Commercial
3527517
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$67,000 Industrial
3527516
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$17,000 Industrial
3449092
Vale Canada Limited
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
3527519
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$67,000 Industrial
3527518
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$17,000 Industrial
3527513
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$541,000 Commercial
3490672
Vale Canada Limited
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$6,226,800 Industrial
$120,200 Commercial
$6,347,000
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3527511
Vale Canada Limited
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$6,310,800 Industrial
$661,200 Commercial
$6,972,000
3527512
Vale Canada Limited
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$6,310,800 Industrial
$661,200 Commercial
$6,972,000
3536184
Vale Canada Limited
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$6,972,000 Commercial
Roll Number: 5307-140-002-03900-0000
Address: Levack Con 1 Lot 6 PCL 8144
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3241739
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$3,913,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$331,000 Commercial
$4,390,000
3431962
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$72,000 Commercial
3431958
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$7,000 Industrial
3314677
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$3,913,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$331,000 Commercial
$4,390,000
3431963
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2018
AUG 01, 2018
$13,000 Commercial
3431964
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2018
JAN 01, 2019
$85,000 Commercial
3431959
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$7,000 Industrial
3367792
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$3,913,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$331,000 Commercial
$4,390,000
3431965
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2019
FEB 01, 2019
$13,000 Commercial
3431960
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2019
JUN 01, 2019
$274,000 Industrial
3431966
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$98,000 Commercial
3431961
Glencore Canada Corporation
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$281,000 Industrial
3411062
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$3,913,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$331,000 Commercial
$4,390,000
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3449058
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$4,194,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$429,000 Commercial
$4,769,000
3490700
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$4,194,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$429,000 Commercial
$4,769,000
3514194
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$4,194,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$429,000 Commercial
$4,769,000
3526501
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$4,194,800 Industrial
$145,200 Industrial (Excess Land)
$429,000 Commercial
$4,769,000
3536168
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$4,769,000 Industrial
Roll Number: 5307-140-002-05800-0000
Address: Fraser Mine Road
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3241740
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land)
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3314450
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land)
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3367918
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3411014
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3449088
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3490658
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3527531
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3527532
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$2,767,700 Industrial
$21,300 Industrial (Excess Land
$163,000 Commercial
$2,952,000
3536173
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$2,952,000 Industrial (Excess Land)
Roll Number: 5307-150-003-25100-0000
Address: Levack Mine Mill
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3242172
Vale Canada Limited
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3314504
Vale Canada Limited
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3367960
Vale Canada Limited
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3411067
Vale Canada Limited
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3449108
Vale Canada Limited
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3490663
Vale Canada Limited
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3527522
Vale Canada Limited
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3527523
Vale Canada Limited
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$4,664,500 Industrial
$322,700 Industrial (Excess Land)
$213,800 Commercial
$5,201,000
3536182
Vale Canada Limited
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$5,201,000 Industrial
Roll Number: 5307-150-004-05400-0000
Address: Coleman Mine Road
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3242173
Vale Canada Limited
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3314678
Vale Canada Limited
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3367860
Vale Canada Limited
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3506355
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$35,000 Industrial
3411118
Vale Canada Limited
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3527525
Vale Canada Limited
33
2020
DEC 15, 2020
$241,000 Commercial
3527526
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$241,000 Commercial
3506357
Vale Canada Limited
33
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$35,000 Industrial
3449100
Vale Canada Limited
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3527527
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$241,000 Commercial
3527524
Vale Canada Limited
33
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$35,000 Industrial
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3490704
Vale Canada Limited
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$2,671,100 Industrial
$183,400 Industrial (Excess Land)
$879,500 Commercial
$3,734,000
3527528
Vale Canada Limited
34
2022
FEB 23, 2022
$18,000 Industrial
3527529
Vale Canada Limited
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$2,732,892 Industrial
$183,992 Industrial (Excess Land)
$1,124,116 Commercial
$4,041,000
3527664
Vale Canada Limited
33
2023
JUN 01, 2023
$4,156,000 Commercial
(Non-assessable unit)
3527665
Vale Canada Limited
33
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$4,156,000 Industrial
(Non-assessable unit)
3527530
Vale Canada Limited
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$2,732,892 Industrial
$183,992 Industrial (Excess Land)
$1,124,116 Commercial
$4,041,000
3536174
Vale Canada Limited
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$4,156,000 Industrial
Roll Number: 5307-150-004-05600-0000
Address: Levack Con. 4 Lot 4 PCL 1613
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Tax Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3241741
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3314712
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3367861
Xstrata Canada Corporation
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3411030
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3449056
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3490671
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3527533
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3527534
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$268,500 Commercial
$8,616,500 Large Industrial
$8,885,000
3536170
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$8,885,000 Commercial
Roll Number: 5307-210-015-03304-0000
Address: MacLennan Con 2 Lots 9 and
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Effective Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3241742
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2017
JAN 01, 2017
$86,900 Managed Forests
$528,400 Commercial (New Construction)
$222,100 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land)
$13,948,600 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$14,786,000
3314615
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2018
JAN 01, 2018
$99,066 Managed Forests
$602,375 Commercial (New Construction)
$253,193 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land)
$15,901,366 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$16,856,000
3367917
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2019
JAN 01, 2019
$528,400 Commercial (New Construction)
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land
$13,948,600 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$16,856,000
3410994
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2020
JAN 01, 2020
$528,400 Commercial (New Construction)
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land)
$13,948,600 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$16,856,000
3449032
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2021
JAN 01, 2021
$528,400 Commercial (New Construction)
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land)
$13,948,600 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$16,856,000
Appeal
Assessed
Section
Taxation Year
Effective Date
Total Value as Returned: Apportionments
Total Value Determined: Apportionments
3490638
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2022
JAN 01, 2022
$528,400 Commercial (New Construction)
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (New Construction) (Excess Land)
$13,948,600 Large Industrial (New Construction)
$16,856,000
3514186
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2023
JAN 01, 2023
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (Excess Land)
$528,400 Commercial
$13,948,600 Large Industrial
$16,856,000
3526503
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2024
JAN 01, 2024
$2,379,000 Large Industrial (Excess Land)
$528,400 Commercial
$13,948,600 Large Industrial
$16,856,000
3536178
Glencore Canada Corporation
40
2025
JAN 01, 2025
$16,856,000 Commercial