Court File and Parties

CITATION: Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2023 ONSC 3622

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 072/23

DATE: 20230615

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION, Moving Party

AND: BELL CANADA and city of toronto, Respondents

BEFORE: Nishikawa J.

COUNSEL: Melissa E. VanBerkum, for the Moving Party Dan Rosman and Richard R. Minster, for the Respondent, Bell Canada No one appearing for the Respondent, City of Toronto

HEARD at Toronto: June 14, 2023 (by videoconference)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), seeks leave to appeal to a full panel of the Divisional Court from the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) dated January 19, 2023.

[2] MPAC assessed the subject property at 11 Asquith Street in Toronto at $33,368,000. The Respondent, Bell Canada, filed an appeal to the Board on the basis that the assessment was too high.

[3] The Board determined that the correct approach to value the property was the cost approach. The Board valued the property at $38,938,000 for the taxation years 2017 to 2022. Further, the Board applied s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, to reduce the current value to represent equitable assessment of the property in relation to assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. As a result, the Board reduced the assessment value of the property to $21,509,000.

[4] MPAC submits that the Board erred in its interpretation of s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

[5] Section 43.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, provides that an appeal lies from a decision of the Board to the Divisional Court, with leave, on a question of law. The test for leave to appeal a decision of the Board is whether it has been shown that there is some reason to doubt the legal correctness of the decision and whether the appeal involves an important question of law meriting the attention of the Divisional Court: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Loblaw Properties Limited, 2016 ONSC 4684 (Div. Ct.), at para. 4.

[6] The court does not ordinarily give reasons on motions for leave to appeal. Whether to give reasons is at the discretion of the motion judge, which should be exercised sparingly: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949; County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22, 2022 ONSC 1458 (Div. Ct.).

[7] In my view, the test for leave to appeal has been met. The motion for leave to appeal the decision to a full panel of the Divisional Court is granted. While MPAC proposed two questions on appeal, I find that both are related to the proper interpretation of s. 44(3)(b). Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted in respect of the following question:

• Did the Board err in its interpretation of s. 44(3)(b) and fail to apply the correct test or measure of equity?

[8] The parties agreed that the successful party on the motion would be entitled to costs of the motion in the amount of $7,500. As such, MPAC is entitled to costs of $7,500, all inclusive. No costs are ordered for or against the City of Toronto, who did not participate in the motion.

“Nishikawa J.”

Date: June 15, 2023