Richard R. Minster

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking disclosure from Cadillac Fairview and MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for the CF Lime Ridge Mall.

Cadillac Fairview opposed the motion, arguing the City failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City missed the deadlines for bringing the motion and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

Consequently, the Board denied the City's motion for disclosure.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of several active mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The City argued that the assessments by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) were too low and sought significant increases.

The Board applied the cost approach to determine the current value, evaluating the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value.

The Board rejected the City's evidence, finding it unreliable and based on incorrect premises, and instead accepted MPAC's detailed and transparent costing and valuation methodology, which was supported by the property owners' experts.

The Board confirmed MPAC's current value assessments and found no equitable reduction was required.

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 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 Assessment Review Board issued an amended decision to correct minor errors in its final decision regarding the property assessment of several gravel pits.

Following an interim decision, the parties agreed on revised assessments, classifications, and apportionments for the taxation years 2017 to 2021.

The Board accepted the parties' interpretation of the interim decision, which included classifying specific portions of source ponds and extraction areas as industrial or residential.

The Board ordered that the representative properties be classified and assessed in accordance with the agreed-upon schedules.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified its student residence from the residential property class to the multi-residential property class.

The Board's decision relied on a previous ruling to interpret the term 'self-contained unit'.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's statutory interpretation and that the issue was of sufficient importance, as it affected over 80 properties and established a new approach to defining self-contained units.

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 County of Wellington appealed the property tax assessments of six licensed gravel pits, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) undervalued the properties and incorrectly classified them.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct interpretation of section 6(2) of O. Reg. 282/98, finding that specific portions of the licensed areas actively used for or in connection with extraction, processing, and related activities fall into the Industrial property class, while the remainder defaults to the Residential or Farm class.

Applying the cost approach, the Board rejected the County's proposed valuation based on general industrial land and MPAC's formula based on marginal farmland, instead relying on a recent sale of a licensed gravel pit to determine a current value of $15,080 per acre for the land portion.

The Board found no evidence to warrant a reduction for equitable assessment.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 38.11 to set aside portions of a partition and sale order made after he failed to appear at the application hearing.

The court found that the failure to appear was due to an administrative mistake by his newly retained counsel.

Applying the five-part test for setting aside an order, the court determined that the moving party moved forthwith, would suffer prejudice if the order stood, and had an arguable case on the merits regarding his claim for a constructive trust over the property.

The motion was granted, the disputed portions of the order were set aside, and the remaining issues were stayed in favour of an ongoing family law proceeding between the parties.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed the reclassification of its property from the residential to the multi-residential property tax class.

The appellant argued the property should remain in the residential class because the units were not self-contained and the property was used on a seasonal basis.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not used on a seasonal basis as it was open year-round.

Applying a prior Board decision, the Board determined that the physical layout of the suites, which included shared kitchens and bathrooms, met the definition of self-contained units.

The Board also held that equity does not apply to property classification.

The appeal was dismissed and the multi-residential classification was upheld.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing its commercial property was damaged by demolition during its conversion from a movie theatre to a fitness facility.

The City denied the application, arguing the work was a repair or renovation and that the appellant was already receiving a vacant unit rebate under s. 364.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding no statutory impediment to contemporaneous relief under both sections.

The Board concluded the property was damaged by partial demolition, rendering it substantially unusable for its previous purpose, and ordered a tax refund of $49,744.17.

The moving party, a commercial tenant responsible for property taxes, sought to reinstate assessment appeals for the 2013-2016 tax years.

The property owner had previously filed the appeals but subsequently withdrew them without the tenant's knowledge.

The tenant argued it would suffer prejudice if the appeals were not reinstated, as an error in the base year assessment would result in taxes being paid on non-existent property area.

With the consent of all respondents, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming an earlier order that corrected a typographical error in a property assessment.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order under section 134 of the Courts of Justice Act to provide a corrected base rate for the assessment and realty taxes.

The Divisional Court granted the requested order to give effect to the parties' agreement and avoid extending the period of miscalculation.

The Assessment Review Board approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the participating parties regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years for the property located at 55 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The parties were ordered to comply with all terms and procedural dates in the attached order.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a property assessment appeal concerning a property in the City of Kingston.

The order establishes deadlines for discovery, exchange of witness lists and statements, expert reports, and sets a two-day hearing commencing in January 2016.

The appellants applied for the cancellation and refund of $203,145.85 charged by the City of Vaughan in 2005 to recover a shortfall in property taxes from 2003 and 2004.

The appellants argued the charge constituted an overcharge due to a gross or manifest clerical error under section 334 of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the City's deliberate request to recover the undercharge based on its legal interpretation of section 331 was not an inadvertent clerical or factual mistake on the 2005 tax roll that the Board had the authority to correct.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a large pulp and paper mill in Thunder Bay for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the cost approach to value and agreed on the reproduction cost new of the buildings and yardworks.

The Board had to determine the appropriate deductions for functional obsolescence (excess capital and operating costs), physical depreciation, and external obsolescence due to the severe decline in the pulp and paper industry.

The Board rejected the income-based return on capital method proposed by the municipality and largely adopted the modified greenfield method proposed by the appellant's expert.

The Board reduced the assessed value of the property from $72,232,000 to $32,620,000 and found no further adjustment was required for equity.

The Appellants appealed the 2012 property tax assessment of the Buttonville Airport Lands.

MPAC had increased the assessment of the main airport parcel from $31.4 million to $63.6 million, arguing that the highest and best use of the land had changed from an airport to urban development land following the sale of a partial interest to a developer.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC is legally permitted to change its opinion of value during the four-year assessment cycle.

However, the Board held that MPAC failed to prove that the highest and best use of the land had changed as of the valuation date, given the significant regulatory hurdles and long development timeframes still required.

The Board concluded that the cost approach remained the most appropriate valuation method and reduced the 2012 assessment back to $31.4 million.