Property Tax Assessment - ODC

The self-represented appellant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to stay a tax sale of his property and challenge a property tax assessment by MPAC.

The appellant had previously missed the deadline to appeal the assessment to the Assessment Review Board and had a related Small Claims Court action dismissed or stayed.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from MPAC, an out-of-time appeal from the ARB without leave on a question of law, or an appeal from an interim Small Claims Court order.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the municipal council to hold a meeting pursuant to section 357(5) of the Municipal Act to hear representations regarding a significant tax overcharge caused by a clerical error.

The municipality had refused the request, asserting it lacked authority and that statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court found that the municipality erred in law by declining its jurisdiction and that the application was made within the statutory timeframe.

The court granted the application and issued an order of mandamus compelling the council to hold the requested meeting and make a decision.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision declaring that properties leased by the Crown to non-profit Harbour Authorities for nominal rent were exempt from property taxation.

MPAC argued the Harbour Authorities paid valuable consideration through services and maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the services did not constitute a profit to the Crown.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Harbour Authorities shared an identity of patrimony with the Crown, entitling them to the same tax exemption.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The respondent property owner initially sought retroactive reclassification of his property, but amended his application to seek a fairness hearing regarding his municipal taxes.

The application judge reduced the respondent's taxes owing to $3,000, relying on inherent and equitable jurisdiction.

The municipality appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assessment Act and Municipal Act provide a comprehensive statutory mechanism for tax assessment and collection, and the application judge lacked jurisdiction to circumvent this framework to alter property classifications or reduce taxes.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which classified an entire property as industrial.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply s. 6(1) of O.Reg. 282/98 under the Assessment Act.

Given the Board's findings that the appellant company operated independently, did no manufacturing, and had a separate lease, the portion of the property used by the company should have been classified as commercial.

The appeal was allowed, and the portion of the property was restored to the commercial property class for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a declaration that a non-profit apartment complex for recovering substance abusers was exempt from municipal taxation as a 'house of refuge' under s. 3(1)-11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the facility's primary purpose was to provide a protected environment and sanctuary from the peril of recidivism into addiction, thus qualifying for the exemption.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the property assessment of his home for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law and procedure, including failing to consider nuisance factors and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to raise a question of law or establish any reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, which was based on factual determinations.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a portion of their property from commercial to industrial.

The property was occupied by two related but separate corporations, one a manufacturer and one a distributor, under separate leases.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision to treat the two lessees as one corporation and its application of the statutory provisions, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant Divisional Court review.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The Assessment Review Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's use of the income method to value duty free stores at international border crossings violated the Assessment Act by improperly considering the bridge or tunnel structure.

The applicants argued that revenue generated from customers using the bridges or tunnels should not be considered.

The Divisional Court held that the income method relies on the rental income specified in the lease and does not constitute a consideration of the bridge or tunnel structure itself.

The court answered the stated question in the negative.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the interpretation of property class regulations.

The moving party argued the ARB ignored the clear wording of the regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision, as the ARB properly applied a teleological approach to statutory interpretation consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which denied her request to designate her property as 'Farm Property Class' for reduced tax rates.

The Tribunal found she failed to meet the minimum gross farm income requirement and did not qualify for an exemption due to an unusual production year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding that the applicant's grounds of appeal raised factual issues rather than questions of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held that the appellant was estopped from relitigating the June 30, 1996 current value of its property for the 2000 taxation year.

The appellant had previously challenged the same value for the 1998 and 1999 taxation years, and the Board had confirmed the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to administrative proceedings, as the same issue had been previously decided between the same parties in a final decision.

The applicant appealed a decision denying a property tax exemption for its children's camp.

The application judge had found the camp was primarily recreational and did not qualify as a place for the 'care of children' under s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the camp's primary purpose was the care of children in a special educational setting, integrating special needs children with others.

The court held that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to recognize the charitable and educational nature of the care provided.

The moving party sought an adjournment of its motion for leave to appeal an Assessment Review Board decision, pending the outcome of its concurrent request for a review of the same decision by the Board.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, arguing it would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and give the moving party 'two kicks at the can'.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, holding that parallel proceedings are authorized by statute and that administrative proceedings should be allowed to run their full course before judicial review is pursued.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the assessed value of its two senior citizen apartment buildings.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on actual rents that included fees for non-realty services rather than fair market rents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board made no error of law and that the appellant failed to discharge its onus under section 60(1) of the Assessment Act to prove the assessment was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) which changed the property tax class of five suite hotels from 'hotel' to 'residential/farm' and 'multi-residential'.

The ARB had concluded that the suite hotels did not meet the definition of a hotel under the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision because it failed to make findings on the evidence or provide an analysis of why a suite hotel is not included in the definition.

The court also found the issue to be of sufficient importance as it would impact numerous other suite hotels in Ontario.