Sarah W. Corman

The applicant, a non-profit environmental education centre, sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The respondent assessment corporation opposed the application, arguing the centre lacked a structured curriculum, regular students, and formal instructors.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the primary purpose of the centre, determined objectively, was educational.

The court held that a flexible approach to the definition of a 'seminary of learning' was appropriate, and the centre's workshops, symposiums, and experiential learning programs sufficiently constituted a focused educational agenda.

The applicant, a community development corporation, brought an application for a declaration that it is a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and therefore exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)(9) of the Assessment Act.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including ejusdem generis, and found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a local board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that a portion of its property leased to a day school was exempt from municipal taxation under paragraph 5 of s. 3(1) of the Assessment Act.

The applicant argued that if it occupied the space itself, it would use it for the relief of the poor, thereby qualifying for the exemption under paragraph 12(iii).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory language requires an objective assessment of the owner's actual nature and operations, not hypothetical future uses, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate it was currently organized and engaged primarily in the relief of the poor or supported by public funds.

The respondent, having successfully defended an application regarding a prescriptive easement and property damage, sought partial indemnity costs of $62,755.63.

The applicant opposed the quantum, arguing the file was overworked and the rates were excessive, noting her own costs would have been approximately $18,000.

The court agreed that the costs claimed exceeded what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay for this type of litigation.

Costs were assessed and awarded to the respondent in the amount of $40,000 all inclusive.

The applicant sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement over a passageway on the respondent's adjoining property and damages for the pruning of an overhanging tree limb.

The court found that the historical use of the passageway by the applicant's predecessors was permissive and neighbourly, not 'as of right', and thus no prescriptive easement was established.

The court also dismissed the claim for damages, holding that the respondent was legally entitled at common law to prune the overhanging branches of the applicant's tree that intruded onto her property.