Amazon v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2025 CanLII 85047

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 22, 2025

FILE NO.: DM 188694

Assessed Person(s): Greycan 8 Properties Inc.; 11035380 Canada Inc. c/o Panattoni Development Company

Appellant(s): Amazon, c/o James Poliyanskiy; 11035380 Canada Inc. c/o Panattoni Development Company

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): 110 Aeropark Boulevard

Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s): 2518-902-310-16602-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3510157, 3510158, 3510159, 3510112, 3510098, 3510097, 3513420, 3513409, 3510626, 3525927, 3525912, 3535701, and 3535675

Taxation Year(s): 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 788165

Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Amazon

Kathleen Poole Lauren Lackie Karina Wong

Greycan 8 Properties Inc., 11035380 Canada Inc. c/o Panattoni Development Company

Paul Grosman

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Marc McLaren-Caux Jan M. Nitoslawski

City of Hamilton

John O’Kane

REQUEST FOR: An order determining the valuation day for assessments made pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

HEARD: July 14, 2025 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

The Parties and the Appeals

1Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC (“Amazon”) has appealed the 2022-2025 assessments of the property located at 110 Aeropark Boulevard in the City of Hamilton (the “City”).

2Amazon’s appeals include appeals of assessments made February 6, 2022 pursuant to s. 34 (the “s. 34 Assessments”) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the Act”).

3The City and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) are responding to Amazon’s appeals.

The Motion

4The parties attended two case conferences before the Board where they discussed the legal issues to be determined by the Board at the hearing of the appeals. At these case conferences, the Board – on its own initiative – identified a legal issue it wished the parties to address: the valuation day that applies to the s. 34 Assessments.

5The parties agreed that the applicable valuation day is January 1, 2016. Nevertheless, the Board asked the parties to address the applicable valuation day for the s. 34 Assessments as an issue at the hearing.

6Amazon and the City have brought this motion asking the Board to determine a question of law prior to the hearing; specifically, what valuation day applies to the s. 34 Assessments.

7This is an unusual motion in that Amazon, the City, and MPAC all agree that the valuation day for the s. 34 Assessments is January 1, 2016. The Board is therefore tasked with determining whether their proposed interpretation of the Act is correct in law.

Result

8The Board determines that, where supplementary assessments are made pursuant to s. 34 of the Act, land is valued as of the date prescribed in s. 19.2 of the Act. In the circumstances of this Motion Decision, the valuation day for the s. 34 Assessments is January 1, 2016.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

9The Board will address two preliminary matters: first, Amazon and the City submit that it is inappropriate for the Board to raise the valuation day question, as this issue was not pleaded by the parties, citing Marathon Realty Co. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region 7, 1979 CarswellOnt 3377 at paragraph 33 (“Marathon Realty”) and Rodaro v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2002 CanLII 41834 (ON CA) at paragraph 60 (“Rodaro”) in support of this submission; second, the parties have asked the Board to state a case to Divisional Court.

10The Board does not accept the former submission. The Board finds that it is entirely appropriate to ask the parties to address the valuation day that applies to the s. 34 Assessments. In deciding the appeals, the Board will be required to interpret and apply the Act. While the parties may agree on the applicable valuation day, that does not mean that the Board is bound to apply that valuation day regardless of the provisions of the Act. For example, if the parties agreed that the correct valuation day is January 1, 2008, would the Board be bound to apply that valuation day regardless of the provisions of the Act? Of course not – to do so would constitute an error of law. In this instance, the Board has properly asked the parties to address what the Act says regarding the valuation day that applies to the s. 34 Assessments at issue in the Subject Appeals.

11The Board has considered Marathon Realty and Rodaro and does not consider them relevant to the question before the Board. This is not a circumstance where the Board is rejecting opinion evidence or stepping outside the pleadings – the question of the applicable valuation day is a legal question engaged in the underlying appeals.

12Regarding the request to state a case to the Divisional Court, the Board declines to do so. The question raised by the parties in this Motion relates to interpretation of the Act. The Board has expertise in interpreting and applying the Act, as this legislation is the primary subject matter of its jurisdiction.

ISSUE

13The primary issue on this motion is: what valuation day applies to the s. 34 Assessments?

ANALYSIS

Applicable Law

14There are several statutory provisions to interpret.

15Section 19.2 of the Act provides as follows:

Valuation days

19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

1. For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.

2. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.

3. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, land is valued as of January 1, 2012.

4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.

5. After 2020, for each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year that precedes the period by two years. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 1, s. 5; 2018, c. 8, Sched. 1, s. 6.

(2)-(4) Repealed: 2007, c. 7, Sched. 1, s. 5.

Exception

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the valuation of land for a taxation year after 2004 if the Minister prescribes a different day as of which land is valued for that year.

16O. Reg 282/98 provides as follows:

Different Valuation Days for the Purposes of Section 19.2 of the Act

48.6 For the purposes of section 19.2 of the Act, January 1, 2016, is prescribed as the day as of which land is valued for the 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

17Section 34 of the Act provides as follows:

Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll

34 (1) If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices,

(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose;

(b) land or a portion of land ceases,

(i) to be exempt from taxation,

(ii) to be farm lands the current value of which is determined in accordance with subsection 19 (5),

(iii) to be conservation land the current value of which is determined under subsection 19 (5.2),

(iii.1) to be land in the managed forests property class the current value of which is determined under subsection 19 (5.2) or (5.2.1),

(iv) to be land the current value of which is based on current use under regulations made under subsection 19 (2), or

(v) to be classified in a subclass of real property;

(c) Repealed: 1997, c. 5, s. 22 (1).

(d) a pipeline increases in value because it ceases to be entitled to the reduction provided for in subsection 25 (9),

the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect the change, and upon receiving notice of the further assessment, the clerk of the municipality or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister shall enter a supplementary assessment on the tax roll and the amount of taxes to be levied thereon shall be the amount of taxes that would have been levied for the portion of the taxation year left remaining after the change occurred if the assessment had been made in the usual way.

Findings of the Board

Legislative Framework Governing Assessment

18The Board has extensively reviewed the legislative framework that governs assessment in Ontario in recent cases including ARI STC GP Inc. v Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 116834 (ON ARB) (“ARI STC”), leave to appeal denied 2024 ONSC 3663; National Car Rental (Canada) Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 53352 (ON ARB) (“National Car”) and Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc v Oshawa (City), 2023 CanLII 116832 (ON ARB) (“Ivanhoe Cambridge”) leave to appeal denied 2024 ONSC 3663. The Board does not intend to repeat that analysis here, but notes that these decisions provide important context to legal issue raised in this Motion Decision.

19To summarize, assessments of land in Ontario must be made annually between January 1 and the second Tuesday following December 1: see s. 36(1) of the Act. The assessment contains certain information prescribed in s. 14 of the Act, including the current value of the land. “Current value” is defined in s. 1 of the Act as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”. Land is valued as of January 1, 2016 for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years: see 19.2(5) of the Act and s. 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98.

20There are limited provisions of the Act that permit assessments other than these annual assessments. Section 34 is one such provision.

21Section 34(1)(a) is relevant to Amazon’s s. 34 Assessments. Section 34(1)(a) permits MPAC to make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect an increase in value which results from the improvement of a building or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose, where that occurs after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices.

Recent Case Law Relevant to Valuation Days

a. National Car

22In National Car the Board determined that the Act provides that a property’s current value for each year of an assessment cycle is based on the value of the property on the valuation day specified in s. 19.2 of the Act: see National Car at paragraph 70. The Board found that the Act permits the current value to change during an assessment cycle under two distinct circumstances: first, where the valuation day for determining current value changes; and second, where the valuation day does not change but the quantum of current value must change to correct an error or omission in the original assessment, or to reflect a decision of the Board: see National Car at paragraphs 71 and 125. Although s. 34 of the Act was not engaged in the circumstances of National Car, the Board opined that s. 34 is an example of a different valuation day. According to the Board’s analysis in National Car, s. 34 provides that current value may be determined based on a valuation day other than the valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act: see National Car at paragraphs 125 and 129. The Board explained its interpretation in more detail at paragraph 116:

Regarding the reassessment of current value, the wording of s. 34(1)(a) is unequivocal. Such reassessment can only occur where the change that has occurred is an improvement to the property. The additional overlapping qualifiers that the improvement: i) “commences to be used”; and ii) is “used for any purpose” are both significant. The first qualifier indicates that the valuation day on which to reassess current value is the day that the improvement commences to be used. (emphasis added)

b. CAMI

23In General Motors of Canada Company v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2024 CanLII 55068 (ON ARB) (“CAMI”), the Board expounded its view regarding the valuation day and s. 34. Specifically:

a. The Board considered the definition of “general reassessment” in s. 1 of the Act and determined that it “is inextricably linked to s. 19.2 – in other words, the valuation days specified in 19.2 apply only to the general reassessment”: CAMI at paragraph 51. Accordingly, “s. 19 does not prescribe the valuation day for valuing real property for all assessments imposed by the Act”: see CAMI at paragraph 51.

b. The Board reasoned that “had the Legislature intended that s. 19.2 would apply to all assessments, it would be unnecessary for the definition of ‘general reassessment’ to expressly refer to s. 19.2”: CAMI at paragraph 51.

c. The Board noted that section 34(1)(a) does not expressly state the valuation day for determining the increase in value, but that there are two dates “implicitly referenced”: the date that the construction of the improvement is completed, and the date that the improvement commences to be used: CAMI at paragraph 58. The Board found that the assessor cannot make the further assessment until the date the improvement commences to be used and that this “clearly indicates that the valuation day for determining the increase in value is the Use Date”: CAMI at paragraph 59.

d. Finally, the Board considered whether the s. 34 valuation day should be the general assessment valuation day prescribed in 19.2 of the Act. The Board ultimately concluded that since s. 34 provides for a supplementary assessment, it is not the general reassessment and, consequently, the general reassessment valuation day does not apply: see CAMI at paragraph 62.

24Based on this analysis, the Board in CAMI held that the valuation day for s. 34(1)(a) of the Act is the day that the improvement commenced to be used.

25It is this interpretation of the Act that the parties are challenging in this Motion Decision.

c. Cadillac Fairview

26Amazon and the City have identified Cadillac Fairview v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2025 CanLII 21696 (ON ARB) (“Cadillac Fairview”) as a decision where the Board followed the comments in CAMI that a different valuation day other than January 1, 2016 applies for assessments made under s. 34.

27The Board does not accept this interpretation of Cadillac Fairview. Notably, the Board in Cadillac Fairview identified that MPAC’s submissions failed to address the statutory basis for the changes in value that were reflected in the assessments under appeal. Referencing CAMI, the Board stated “MPAC’s statutory basis for these changes in value is relevant because it is possible that the valuation day could be different”: Cadillac Fairview at paragraph 28. The Board went on to say, “it is possible that s. 34 governed and there could be a different valuation day than January 1, 2016” (emphasis added): see Cadillac Fairview at paragraph 28.

28In my view, Cadillac Fairview did not apply the interpretation of s. 34 that the Board applied in CAMI. Instead, the Board in Cadillac Fairview identified the statutory interpretation raised in CAMI and declined to grant a pre-hearing motion for issue estoppel without comprehensive legal argument on the issue. Notably, the Board in Cadillac Fairview denied the motion for issue estoppel without prejudice to MPAC raising issue estoppel – including a statutory interpretation of s. 34 – at the hearing.

29The Board will now consider whether it ought to apply the interpretation of s. 34 from National Car and CAMI.

A Few Words About “State and Condition”

30MPAC states at paragraph 39 of its submissions on this Motion that “[t]he annual assessment is conducted based on the state and condition of the property at that time.” MPAC has devoted several paragraphs of its submissions to “state and condition”, arguing that the term is “used to give expression to the basic structure of the Act, which makes a simple but crucial distinction between a ‘valuation day’, which concerns the market as of a certain point in time, and how a thing ‘is’ when it is being assessed”: see paragraph 42 of MPAC’s submissions dated June 23, 2025.

31To summarize, the “state and condition” paradigm postulates that the value of land reflected in the annual assessment is based on the “state and condition” of that land as if the latest date for making the assessment for the taxation year: see ARI STC, supra at paragraph 34. Put another way, what this property would sell for on that valuation day.

32The concept of “state and condition” is not directly engaged by the analysis required to address the s. 34 valuation day; yet the Board wishes to address it given MPAC’s submissions.

33The state and condition paradigm contained in pre-National Car case law has been extensively and thoughtfully considered – and thoroughly rejected – by the Board: see National Car,; ARI STC, ; Ivanhoe Cambridge, . To be clear, the Board in National Car, ARI STC and Ivanhoe Cambridge considered both the Act and previous Board decisions in great detail and – undeniably – departed from “longstanding practices or established internal authority”: see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 at paragraph 131. However, in doing so, the Board provided exacting reasons, including comprehensive statutory interpretation, justifying that departure. Without extensively reviewing the Board’s analysis in rejecting the state and condition paradigm, the Board carefully analysed the wording of s. 36(1) and (2) of the Act and determined that these provisions do not contemplate a fixed “state and condition day” which is a necessary component of the state and condition paradigm: see ARI STC at paragraph 47(3).

34For this reason, the Board accepts the interpretation of the Act in National Car, ARI STC, and Ivanhoe Cambridge insofar as those cases stand for the proposition that the Act specifically provides for the date as of which land is valued, which is not consistent with an annual redetermination of current value based on the annual “state and condition” of a property: see ARI STC at paragraph 51. The Act provides for one valuation day that applies to the determination of current value as reflected on the assessment for each taxation year in an assessment cycle, subject to provisions in the Act that require a redetermination of current value in certain circumstances: see ARI STC at paragraph 53(3). Section 34 is one such provision.

35That said, and for the following reasons, I do not accept the interpretation of the Act postulated in National Car and CAMI that s. 19.2 of the Act does not apply to assessments made pursuant to s. 34.

Reasoning in National Car and CAMI

36The reasoning in National Car and CAMI is premised on the idea that because the definition of general reassessment is “inextricably linked” to s. 19.2, the valuation days specified in 19.2 apply only to the general reassessment: see CAMI at paragraphs 51 and 62.

37The Board does not agree with this interpretation. An express reference to s. 19.2 in the s. 1 definition of “general reassessment” does not mean that the converse is true and s. 19.2 must be interpreted solely in relation to the general reassessment.

38Interpreting s. 19.2 as applicable to other assessments made pursuant to the Act, and not solely in relation to “general reassessment” as defined in s. 1 of the Act, is supported by the following:

a. There is no language in s. 19.2 that demonstrates a legislative intent to limit valuation days to general reassessments only. There is no language in s. 19.2 that demonstrates a legislative intent to exclude s. 34 from its application. Importantly, there is no language excluding s. 34 from its application despite s. 19.2(1) contemplating certain exceptions by using the language “subject to subsection 5”.

b. Section 19.2 prescribes the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year. It does not prescribe the day as of which land is valued based on the type of assessment; for instance, based on whether it is a s. 36 annual assessment or a s. 34 supplementary assessment. Importantly, s. 19.2 does not even reference assessments of any type – it speaks only to value, specifically how one should choose “the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year”.

c. A supplementary assessment, by definition, supplements the assessment made in respect of a given taxation year. The valuation day for a supplementary assessment must be the same as the valuation day for the assessment it supplements – this is clear from 34(1) itself, which states that “the amount of taxes to be levied thereon shall be the amount of taxes that would have been levied for the portion of the taxation year left remaining after the change occurred if the assessment had been made in the usual way”. This only makes sense if both the annual assessment and the supplementary assessment for a particular taxation year share the same valuation day.

39Finally, the interpretation posited by the Board in National Car and CAMI risks producing absurd results:

a. A s. 34 assessment supplements an annual assessment – it is a “further” assessment. If the valuation day for a s. 34 assessment were the day the improvement commences to be used, then a newly improved property would be valued using two valuation days. For instance, say a residential property owner builds a swimming pool in their backyard and starts using it on July 1, 2022. If the interpretation of s. 34 from National Car and CAMI is correct, then the residence would be valued as of January 1, 2016 for the s. 36 assessment for the 2022 taxation year while the swimming pool would be valued as of July 1, 2022 for the s. 34 assessment.

b. Section 34(1) provides that the assessor “may” make the further assessment. It is not mandatory. Section 34(4) provides that where the assessment corporation makes an assessment under s. 34, or could have done so but did not, the appropriate change shall be made on the assessment roll for the next year. Using the pool example from above, if MPAC could have, but did not, make a s. 34 assessment to capture the value of the pool in 2022, s. 34(4) says that the pool would be captured on the next s. 36 annual assessment. Since it is a s. 36 assessment, then s. 19.2 applies in terms of the valuation day. Following the interpretation in National Car and CAMI creates two scenarios for a property such as this: where MPAC does make a s. 34 assessment of the pool in 2022, the pool is valued as of July 1, 2022 and the residence is valued as of January 1, 2016. Where MPAC does not make a s. 34 assessment of the pool in 2022, then the value is captured on the next s. 36 assessment by virtue of s. 34(4), and the pool and the residence are both valued as of January 1, 2016. This creates different valuation days for newly improved properties where MPAC issues a s. 34 supplementary assessment as compared to newly improved properties where MPAC does not issue a s. 34. This risks unfairness.

Section 19.2 Prescribes the Valuation Day for Assessments Made Pursuant to s. 34

40The Board finds that the plain and obvious meaning of s. 19.2 is that all land that is valued for a taxation year is valued as of the valuation day prescribed by 19.2, irrespective of the section of the Act, or type of assessment, for which that value is being determined. Since supplementary assessments pursuant to s. 34 are made in respect of a particular taxation year, and since land is valued pursuant to s. 34(1)(a), s. 19.2 also applies to s. 34(1)(a) and the s. 34 Assessments in this case.

41This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Act. Namely, the Divisional Court has confirmed that a “basic principle” of the Act is to “ensure a proportional distribution of the tax burden, relative to the current values of lands, so that each property bears its ‘fair share’”: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 at paragraph 11. The purpose of the statute to ensure the fair distribution of taxes among ratepayers suggests broader application of the valuation days prescribed by s. 19.2. Having all land valued on the same valuation day ensures fair and equitable taxation among taxpayers. To do otherwise risks disparity in the distribution of taxes based on when a property is constructed or improved.

42With respect to the language in s. 34 of the Act that the improvement “commences to be used for any purpose”, the Board finds that this language properly describes the “effective date” of the s. 34 assessment. While s. 34 does not use the term “effective date”, the operation of s. 34 is such that a supplementary assessment can be made by MPAC at some point in time. Section 34 prescribes that point in time as “after notices of assessment have been given under section 31” but “before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices.” Section 34(1)(a) further narrows that date to when the improvement “commences to be used for any purpose”, therefore, the effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment.

43In accordance with s. 19.2 and 34 of the Act, and s. 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98, the Board finds that the valuation day that applies to the s. 34 Assessments is January 1, 2016.

CONCLUSION

44Ultimately, s. 19.2 is a full answer to the valuation day question in that it prescribes a specific valuation day for a taxation year regardless of the section under which land is assessed in the Act. Section 19.2 expressly does not speak to the assessment that is made – it speaks to value of land. In this regard, the Board accepts MPAC’s submission that “All assessments under the Act relate to some taxation year. By exhaustively specifying the valuation days for all taxation years, section 19.2 covers all assessments made under the Act.”

ORDER

45The Board orders that the valuation day for the s. 34 Assessments is January 1, 2016 in accordance with s. 19.2 of the Act and s. 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98.