Peter Milligan

The moving party brought a motion seeking permission for the late filing of a property assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the appeal was not actually late.

Because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) failed to mail its response to the Request for Reconsideration within the 180-day statutory deadline, the filing deadline was extended to 90 days after the notice should have been mailed pursuant to subsection 40(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appeal was filed well before this extended deadline and will be processed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to outstanding assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, based on a previous Board decision regarding the 2013 taxation year.

The previous decision found that the subject property did not qualify as farm lands used only for farm purposes and changed its classification to vacant land/commercial, increasing its assessment.

The Board applied the discretionary factors from Danyluk and found no material change in circumstances or compelling reasons to re-open the issues.

The motion was granted, issue estoppel was applied, and the previous findings on current value and classification were applied to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying 32 of its natural gas gate stations as industrial rather than commercial properties.

The Board had found that adding odourant to natural gas constituted 'processing' under the Assessment Act regulations.

The Divisional Court clarified that the test for leave to appeal where the standard of review is reasonableness is whether there is reason to doubt the reasonableness of the decision, rather than its correctness.

Finding that there was reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'processing' and that the issue was of sufficient importance, the Court granted leave to appeal.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessments of industrial malls in Halton and Peel Regions for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The central issue was the appropriate capitalization rate to apply to the net operating income of the properties.

MPAC had originally used a 7% capitalization rate but revised it to 6.6% for appealed properties after reducing fair market rents.

The Appellants argued the 6.6% rate was incorrect and inequitable compared to unappealed properties that remained at 7%.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence supporting the 6.6% rate, finding that equity applies to the final assessed value rather than individual valuation components.

The Board concluded the 6.6% capitalization rate produced correct and equitable current values.

The moving parties brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking the production of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) Industrial Mall Capitalization Rate Study.

The Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested information, including redacted income and expense information for specific properties, subject to the execution of Undertakings of Non-Disclosure by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants.

The Appellants requested an order to hold a motion under Rule 57 to compel MPAC to produce documents containing confidential financial information used to revise the capitalization rate for Industrial Mall properties.

The Board ordered that the production motion be scheduled and served by registered mail to the vendors whose information is sought.

The Board also scheduled a hearing event to adjudicate representative cases dealing with the capitalization rate issue.

The appellant appealed the property assessment classification of 32 natural gas gate stations, arguing they should be classified as commercial rather than industrial.

The issue was whether adding an odorant (Mercaptan) to natural gas constitutes 'processing anything' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Federal Farms test, finding that the addition of the odorant changes the nature of the gas and makes it more marketable.

The Board followed its previous decision in Enbridge, dismissing the appeals and confirming the properties are properly classified in the industrial property class.

The original owner of a hotel appealed its property assessment.

After selling the property, the original owner's agent improperly requested a withdrawal of the appeals, which the Board erroneously processed despite the assessing authority's objection and notice seeking a higher assessment.

Over two years later, the Board administratively re-instated the appeals without notice to the parties.

The new owner brought a motion to cancel the re-instated appeals.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to re-instate the appeals, doing so after such a long delay without notice or submissions was a denial of natural justice.

The Board cancelled the re-instated appeals, finding that the new owner would suffer undue prejudice by facing a potential retroactive tax liability for years it did not own the property.

The applicant church sought a declaration that its single-building complex, which housed both a place of worship and a religious school, was exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The respondent assessment corporation argued that the school portions were taxable because the school was operated by a separately incorporated entity.

The court found that the church and the school formed a single patrimony, with the church controlling and dominating the school's operations.

The court held that the exemptions for a place of worship and a non-profit educational seminary applied to the school-use areas, granting the application.

The appellants, owners of several hotel properties, brought a motion seeking disclosure from MPAC of financial and performance information regarding comparable hotel properties to assist their valuation experts in an assessment appeal.

MPAC consented to the motion subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, ordering MPAC to produce the requested information upon receipt of executed undertakings of non-disclosure, while adjourning the motion with respect to two disputed properties to allow for further submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assessment Review Board changing the tax class of its property from farm land to vacant commercial land.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review because the applicant bypassed the statutory leave to appeal process.

The application was dismissed.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference call to review the status of appeals and confirm dates for a production motion hearing.

The appellant requested a variation of a previous procedural order regarding the service requirements for motion materials on non-parties.

With no objections from the other parties, the Board amended the previous order to allow the appellant to serve all other assessed persons by registered mail to their last known mailing address provided by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board held an emergency pre-hearing conference call to address a request by Exchange Corporation Canada (ECC) to vary a previous procedural order regarding production motions for airport tenant appellants.

The Board agreed to vary the order to align the dates with those provided for other appeals, setting deadlines for serving and filing motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.

The appellants in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for an order permitting alternative service of a motion for production of third-party confidential information.

The appellants sought to serve the motion on non-party property owners by registered mail directed to the general manager of the hotel and to the owners' representatives if they had outstanding appeals.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, finding it to be the most just, expeditious, and least expensive method of advancing the production motion.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board, which classified their properties offering extended stay accommodations as hotels under s. 17(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court applied the test for leave to appeal, finding that while the question of law was important, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation.

The plain language of the statute clearly caught the subject properties within the definition of a hotel.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) to the Divisional Court.

The ARB had classified a condominium unit used as a sign shop by the respondent as commercial rather than industrial under O. Reg. 282/98.

The court found that the ARB's decision was based on findings of fact regarding the specific property and did not raise a question of law of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court.

The court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent municipality could not recover approximately $2 million in unbilled property taxes from 2001 to 2007.

The municipality discovered calculation errors during a s. 331 review and sought to collect the back taxes.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 359 of the Municipal Act, 2001 applies to limit the municipality's recovery of undercharged taxes to the current and previous tax years, even for 'eligible properties' undergoing a s. 331 review.

The corporate appellants owned a commercial property that was severed in 2000.

In 2001, amendments to the Municipal Act imposed a new taxation scheme on 'eligible properties', including those that were subdivided or subject to a severance.

The appellants sought a declaration that the amendments did not apply retrospectively to their 2000 severance, arguing they had vested rights to the previous favourable tax treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'eligible property' operates retrospectively to ensure tax fairness and that the appellants had no vested right to the continuance of the previous tax scheme.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision that directed MPAC to bring a complaint to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for two severed parcels.

The Board limited the complaint to apportioning the existing $773,000 assessment between the parcels, precluding MPAC from seeking an increased current value assessment of $1,650,000 due to MPAC's delay and resulting prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly and reasonably exercised its discretion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their land, which was severed in 2000, constituted 'eligible property' for the 2001 taxation year under the Municipal Act.

The appellants argued that the relevant statutory definition, which came into force on January 1, 2001, should only apply to severances occurring after that date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application of the definition to a 2000 severance was implicit by the necessary operation of the municipal tax regime, as 2001 was the first year taxes could be determined on the newly severed parcels.