Phillip L. Sanford

York University applied for a declaration that four student residence buildings on its campus, built and operated by a private developer, remained exempt from municipal property tax under section 18 of the York University Act, 1965.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued the buildings lost their exemption because they were used and occupied by the private developer for profit.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the buildings were used and occupied for the legislated purposes of the university, despite the involvement of a private developer, and therefore remained exempt from taxation.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The moving party (assessed person) brought a motion to prohibit the appellant municipality from raising the tax liability of two surge tanks as an issue in the assessment appeals, arguing the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine tax exemptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality was not asking for a determination on tax exemption, but rather asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the property's current value, which is within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also denied the moving party's request to file a supplementary expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a newly constructed office complex in Toronto, arguing that the partial assessment of the property at 80% of its full value was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient convincing evidence that the comparison properties were at the same stage of development as the subject property on the valuation date.

The Board also rejected the appellants' expert's reliance on only a portion of the assessed values of mixed-use comparison properties.

The appeal for an equitable reduction was dismissed.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The appellant brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking to alter the Schedule of Events to allow for the late filing of an expert report.

The appellant argued that its failure to understand the Board's requirements constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Board found that the appellant had legal representation at the time the deadline passed and for months thereafter, and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The motion was denied as no exceptional circumstances were established.

The Landlord sought leave to appeal an arbitration award concerning the rent reset for a 99-year ground lease, and alternatively, to set aside the award for excess of jurisdiction.

The arbitration tribunal had valued the "Demised Premises" at $63.3 million, while the Landlord argued for $95 million.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Majority's interpretation of the lease or its valuation mandate.

The court also dismissed the application to set aside the award, holding that the Landlord's arguments were an attempt to re-litigate the merits under the guise of a jurisdictional challenge.

The appellants brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board clarify a previous disclosure order pursuant to Rule 99, declare the ordered disclosure confidential under Rule 89, and require the respondents to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) prior to receiving the documents.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no ambiguity in the previous decision that required clarification.

The request for a confidentiality order was deemed premature as no documents had yet been filed with the Board.

Finally, the Board declined to make disclosure conditional on NDAs, noting that existing protections under section 53 of the Assessment Act and the implied undertaking rule were sufficient to address the appellants' concerns regarding commercial sensitivity.

The appellants in a property assessment appeal brought a motion under Rule 99 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure to clarify a prior disclosure decision.

They requested an order declaring the previously ordered disclosure confidential under Rule 89 and requiring the respondents to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before receiving the documents.

The Board denied the motion, finding no misstatement or ambiguity in the prior decision.

The Board also held that the request for a confidentiality order was premature and that existing protections, including section 53 of the Assessment Act and the implied undertaking rule, were sufficient to protect the appellants' commercially sensitive information without the need for NDAs.

The City of Greater Sudbury requested the Assessment Review Board to summon Dale Panday, a director of Hanscomb Limited, as a witness for an upcoming hearing regarding the assessment of various mining properties.

The City sought his testimony on the accuracy of the Automated Costing System component values compared to actual construction costs in Sudbury.

The Board refused the request, finding that the City failed to provide a sufficient summary of the expected evidence, did not establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge, failed to identify the witness in the prior case management order, and made the request too late in the proceeding, which would cause unacceptable delay.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of documents from the property owners, First Gulf and Cadillac Fairview, in the context of property assessment appeals for the East Harbour Lands.

MPAC sought documents relating to the 2019 sale of the properties, development potential, appraisals, and communications with the provincial government regarding zoning changes.

The Assessment Review Board applied a two-part test of relevance and proportionality.

The Board found that the requested categories of documents were relevant to determining the highest and best use and current value of the properties.

However, the Board narrowed the scope of the requests to ensure proportionality, ordering the disclosure of specific, targeted documents such as the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, financial feasibility studies, and specific communications, rather than broad categories of 'all information'.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.

The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.

While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for disclosure in an ongoing property assessment appeal concerning a Magna manufacturing facility.

The City sought detailed financial and operational data, including manufacturing costs and equipment replacement costs, to assess functional obsolescence using the cost approach.

Magna opposed the motion, arguing the requests were disproportionate and irrelevant as it was not using a full model plant methodology.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested information relevant to the dispute over functional obsolescence and proportional to the significant valuation impact, ordering disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings.

Parc-IX Limited applied to set aside an arbitral award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by failing to consider legal regulations (Rental Replacement Unit policy) affecting property valuation under a ground lease.

Manufacturers Life Insurance Company cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed Parc-IX's application, finding the arbitrator did consider the regulations but determined they did not apply on the facts, acting within jurisdiction.

The application to set aside the costs award was also dismissed, affirming that costs are determined on the facts of each case.

The City of Ottawa and the previous owner appealed the property assessments for two vacant lots in downtown Ottawa for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of the properties but disputed the equitable adjustment required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the Assessment to Market Ratio (AMR) method proposed by the current owner, preferring the Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) method used by MPAC and the City.

After filtering the comparable sales to those within the shoulder years of the valuation date, the Board determined a median ASR of 0.830.

This resulted in a reduced equitable current value of $8,500,000 for the subject property.

The appellant appealed an overdue tax bill of $225,535.43 resulting from the City's late processing of phase-in assessment values for the 2009 to 2017 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City failed to comply with implied statutory time limits under the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and that the late processing constituted an error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding no expressed or implied legislative time frames for MPAC to provide the phase-in values or for the City to process them, and concluded there was no error or prejudice to the appellant.

The moving parties requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that classified their property in the multi-residential property class for the 2011 to 2016 taxation years.

They argued that no appeal had been filed for the 2013 taxation year, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the classification for 2013 to 2016.

The Board found that the City of Oshawa did not file an appeal for the 2013 taxation year, and the deeming provisions of the Assessment Act did not apply because 2012 and 2013 had different valuation days.

The Board rejected the City's arguments based on equity and palpable error, concluding it had no jurisdiction to cure a failure to appeal.

The previous decision was varied to remove the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years that were not properly filed.

The moving party, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, brought a motion requesting disclosure of documents from MPAC, including documents related to third persons not party to the appeals.

Notice was provided to the third persons, and no objections were received.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, ordering MPAC to produce the requested valuation documents, rent rolls, and capitalization rate studies, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a rent re-set clause in a 99-year commercial ground lease.

The clause required the property to be valued 'as if it were unimproved'.

The landlord argued this meant the land should be valued as if it were unencumbered and available for freehold condominium development.

The respondent tenant argued the valuation must account for legal restrictions preventing such development.

The court held that the landlord was issue estopped from re-litigating the interpretation decided in a 1990 arbitration.

Alternatively, the court found that the correct interpretation of the lease required the valuation to account for the legal encumbrances restricting the tenant's ability to develop the property.