R. Minster

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 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 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.