Property Tax Assessment - ONSCDC

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 Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,160.

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 appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.

The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.

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 appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.

The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision and interim decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving parties' factum.

Consistent with the court's usual practice, no reasons were provided for the leave decision.

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 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 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.