Phillip L. Sanford

Commercial property owners appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a municipal by-law that granted tax relief to residential property owners.

The appellants argued the by-law was ultra vires, conflicted with provincial legislation, and constituted illegal rebates rather than grants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the municipality had broad powers under the Municipal Act, 2001 to issue grants for municipal purposes, the by-law did not conflict with provincial legislation as dual compliance was possible, and the payments were properly characterized as grants.

A stated case was brought before the Divisional Court regarding whether a municipality's Property Negotiator/Appraiser had the authority to file assessment complaints without prior specific authorization from the Municipal Council.

The Court held that while the act of filing the complaint was purely administrative and authorized by by-law, the decision to pursue the appeal required authorization or ratification by Council within a reasonable time.

Because the Council's resolution attempted to delegate the decision-making power rather than ratify the administrative action, the Court found the process deficient and concluded there were no valid complaints before the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reduced the current value assessments of a zinc mine for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 taxation years.

The mine had suspended operations in late 1998 and was closed by 2000.

The applicant argued the Board made errors of law regarding the valuation method, economic obsolescence, and reliance on expert evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and the applicant failed to show good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision on a question of law.

The appellants, anchor tenants in shopping centres, challenged the constitutionality of shortfall recovery provisions in the Municipal Act.

These provisions allowed commercial landlords to recoup property tax shortfalls from tenants.

The appellants argued this constituted indirect taxation, which is ultra vires the Province under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions merely regulate the pre-existing transferability of a true land tax, which remains a valid direct tax.

The appellants challenged a Divisional Court decision that held development lands zoned for industrial and commercial use could not receive farm land assessment treatment because agricultural use was illegal under the zoning by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 19(3) of the Assessment Act focuses on actual use of the land as a factual matter, not on zoning legality, and that the ordinary meaning of the provision should govern absent compelling contrary indicators.

The court found no basis to read the word “lawfully” into the statute, noted the legislative scheme and policy favoured continued agricultural production, and concluded the Ontario Municipal Board reasonably found the lands were farm lands used only for farm purposes.

The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court order was set aside, and the Board's order was restored.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding its business tax assessment.

The issue was whether leasing photocopiers constituted the sale of a 'service' under s. 7(1)(e) of the Ontario Assessment Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons in the Court of Appeal, holding that 'services' must bear its ordinary meaning as the product of the work of the person supplying it.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found assessable under the catch-all provision in s. 7(1)(j) rather than s. 7(1)(e).