Richard R. Minster

An organization operating treatment and support centres for children sought a declaration that two properties were exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)6.1 of the Assessment Act.

The respondents argued that the exemption applied only to facilities formally designated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as “Children’s Treatment Centers.” The court held that the legislation contained no definition requiring such designation and that the ordinary meaning of a children’s treatment centre governed.

Based on the evidence that the facilities primarily provided treatment to children and received provincial funding, the properties qualified for the exemption.

A declaration of tax exemption was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which had issued amended orders correcting a typographical error in a 2002 assessment decision six years later, resulting in a back tax bill of over $500,000.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the amended decisions and that correctness outweighed any prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction and by failing to balance the objective of correctness with the delay and prejudice suffered by the taxpayer.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for reconsideration.

The applicant taxpayer sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

In 2002, the Board made a typographical error in an order, dropping a zero from the property's assessed value.

Six years later, the Board unilaterally corrected the error under its minor error rule, resulting in a retroactive tax bill of over $500,000 for the taxpayer.

The taxpayer applied for a review, arguing prejudice and delay, but the Board refused relief.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's conclusions on its jurisdiction to review the correction and its failure to properly weigh prejudice and delay.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board affirming a Committee of Adjustment's authorization of minor variances for a neighbouring commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board member erred in law by failing to properly address the tests for a 'minor' variance, 'desirability', and 'impact' under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and that the reasons were insufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law, that the Board member's reasons were adequate, and that the matter did not raise an issue of general importance warranting the court's attention.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease clause concerning the allocation of property taxes.

The lease gave the respondent discretion to use working papers if deemed sufficient.

The application judge found the respondent's decision not to use the working papers was reasonable and consistent with the lease.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that working papers are not intended to apply to individual premises and their unreliability is a legitimate consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which quashed its complaints regarding the property assessments of two properties.

The Board had found the City failed to comply with the notice provisions in s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act because it mailed the notices to the previous owner's address on the assessment roll despite knowing the properties had been sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the City acted reasonably and in good faith by using the address on the roll, which had not been revoked.

The Court found the Board erred in imposing a higher standard of inquiry on the municipality, set aside the decision, and remitted the complaints for a hearing on the merits.

The City of Brampton brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicants on the basis that the paragraphs contained submissions, opinions, irrelevant information, or attempted to introduce new evidence not before the Assessment Review Board.

The court found that the applicants' arguments raised the possibility of a denial of natural justice, making some evidence about the proceedings before the Board necessary.

However, the court struck several paragraphs of the affidavit for being redundant, argumentative, or containing inadmissible opinion.