Sarah Wilson Corman

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct while employed at a youth detention centre.

The nurse admitted to engaging in a personal relationship with a youth patient, failing to report the patient's possession of a contraband cell phone, and bringing contraband items including cannabis and e-cigarettes into the facility for the patient.

The Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a four-month suspension, an oral reprimand, meetings with a regulatory expert, and 12 months of employer notification.

The moving party (assessed person) brought a motion to prohibit the appellant municipality from raising the tax liability of two surge tanks as an issue in the assessment appeals, arguing the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine tax exemptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality was not asking for a determination on tax exemption, but rather asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the property's current value, which is within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also denied the moving party's request to file a supplementary expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in a personal and romantic relationship with a vulnerable mental health patient at a secure facility.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that she breached professional boundaries, spent excessive time with the patient, and exchanged personal information and text messages.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including emotional abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 10-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and various terms, conditions, and limitations, including employer notification and a prohibition on independent practice in the community for 18 months.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision granting the Near North Enviro-Education Centre a property tax exemption under s. 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting the exemption and applying the 'primary purpose' test by focusing on the institution rather than the actual use of the land, and by ignoring traditional indicia of a seminary of learning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the primary purpose test and the Keewaydin factors, and reasonably concluded that the institution's primary purpose, as reflected by its use of the land for environmental education in a rural community, qualified for the exemption.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of eight mining properties.

The City sought various documents related to MPAC's land value analysis and cost rates under the Cost Approach valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality under Rule 45.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose specific sales verification questionnaires and a legible version of its 2016 Automated Cost Systems rates, subject to redactions under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Board denied several other requests as being overly broad, disproportionate, or relating to documents not in MPAC's possession.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The assessed persons, Glencore and Vale, brought a motion to prevent the City of Greater Sudbury from amending its pleadings and advancing certain issues in property assessment appeals for eight mining properties.

They argued that the City was precluded from doing so based on issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, abuse of process, and admissions, relying on a previous Board decision concerning six related properties and representations made in joint procedural requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the same questions had not been decided, no unequivocal promises were made, the City was following the Board's ordered process, and no binding admissions had been made.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for multiple incidents of professional misconduct, including time theft, falsifying records, sleeping on duty, and failing to meet medication and documentation standards.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a 7-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

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 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 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 City of Greater Sudbury requested the Assessment Review Board to summon Dale Panday, a director of Hanscomb Limited, as a witness for an upcoming hearing regarding the assessment of various mining properties.

The City sought his testimony on the accuracy of the Automated Costing System component values compared to actual construction costs in Sudbury.

The Board refused the request, finding that the City failed to provide a sufficient summary of the expected evidence, did not establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge, failed to identify the witness in the prior case management order, and made the request too late in the proceeding, which would cause unacceptable delay.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.

The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.

While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.

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 applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

A case management teleconference was held to provide procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal.

The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, the use of a password-protected drop box for electronic filing, and the formatting of factums and compendiums.