Rodney John Gill

The appellant appealed a Review Decision by an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate upholding an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services.

The order required the installation of interconnected smoke alarms, fire protection features for openings near fire escapes, and a fire-rated furnace room door at the appellant's residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building accommodated more than 10 residents and was a three-storey building, meaning it did not qualify for exceptions under the Fire Code.

The Commission confirmed the required measures as necessary to ensure fire safety and amended the compliance dates.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years to allow for production and discovery against the property owner, Philmor.

The City sought to reclassify the subject property from multi-residential to a commercial parking lot.

The parties had previously operated under the misconception that the facts were not in dispute and intended to proceed via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

However, shortly before the hearing, Philmor requested the City's evidence, taking the City by surprise.

The Assessment Review Board found that while both parties' pleadings were defective and the City could have been more diligent, the delay was reasonably explained.

To ensure procedural fairness and a determination on the merits, the Board granted the adjournment and ordered production and discovery.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a writ of seizure and sale issued to enforce unpaid fines imposed under the Provincial Offences Act.

The municipality had converted the unpaid fines into property tax arrears under the City of Toronto Act and simultaneously pursued enforcement through a writ of seizure and sale.

The court held that where the municipality elected to pursue both enforcement mechanisms, it was required to abide by the statutory regime that provided the property owner greater protection.

Enforcement of the writ of seizure and sale was therefore stayed to align with the tax arrears enforcement timelines under the City of Toronto Act.

The moving party’s claims for monetary compensation were dismissed, though the court allowed recovery of the motion filing fee.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for interior renovations to convert a commercial building into a day nursery.

The City refused the permit on the basis that the application failed to comply with applicable law, including site plan control, park levies, development charges, and zoning by-law requirements for a landscape buffer.

The court held that the proposed alterations did not constitute 'development' under the City of Toronto Act, as they did not substantially increase the usability of the building when measured against its actual prior commercial use.

Consequently, site plan control, park levies, and development charges did not apply.

However, the court upheld the requirement for a 1.5-metre landscape buffer under the zoning by-law, finding no acquired rights protected the applicant from this requirement.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the City was directed to issue the building permit subject to the landscape buffer and other reasonable building code issues.

The City of Toronto brought a stated case from the Assessment Review Board to determine whether the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) or the Assessment Review Board (ARB) has the jurisdiction to alter a property's current value when issuing an omitted or supplementary assessment to change its tax status from exempt to taxable.

The Divisional Court held that neither MPAC nor the ARB has the power to change the current value of a property in these circumstances unless there has been a physical change to the property.

The power to issue omitted or supplementary assessments is limited to reflecting the change in tax status.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.

The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes in Toronto.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the statutory phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court held that the whole of the land must be assessed, and in the context of income-producing properties, 'fee simple, if unencumbered' means value calculated using market rents rather than actual rents, ensuring all interests in the land are valued.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'current value' as 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if vacant, ignoring existing leases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.

The Court found that the entire ownership interest, including both the landlord's and tenants' interests, must be valued, and that the 1997 amendment to the Assessment Act was intended to ensure consistency in valuation by requiring the use of market rents rather than actual rents.