3 total
Leave to appeal granted to determine whether suite hotels fall within the definition of a hotel for property tax purposes.
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.
Judicial review cannot re-litigate the merits of municipal restructuring policy.
Appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing a municipal restructuring commission’s final proposal amalgamating several municipalities and annexing unorganized territory.
The Court of Appeal held that judicial review of a restructuring commission performing a political and legislative function is narrowly confined to whether the commission acted according to law, and does not permit the court to revisit the merits of restructuring policy.
The Divisional Court erred in finding illegality, inadequate consultation with First Nations as a free-standing jurisdictional defect, failure to apply the former OMB 'three filters' test, an impermissible 'tax grab', and bias.
The cross-appeal seeking a declaration under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 was dismissed without prejudice because the record was inadequate for determination of the constitutional issue.
A single judge's decision denying leave to appeal can only be set aside if they declined jurisdiction.
The moving parties appealed their property assessments to the Ontario Municipal Board, which dismissed the appeals.
A single judge of the Divisional Court denied their motion for leave to appeal.
The moving parties then brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside the denial of leave.
The Divisional Court held that a decision granting or denying leave to appeal made by a single judge can only be set aside if the judge declined jurisdiction.
As the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction, the motion was dismissed.
