Property Tax Assessment - SCJ

The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that its 40-unit apartment building for low-income seniors was exempt from municipal taxation under s. 3(1) para. 12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed, arguing the applicant merely provided affordable housing rather than relieving poverty.

The court found that the term 'poor' is relative and not limited to the destitute.

Given the tenants' average and median incomes, which closely aligned with Statistics Canada's low-income cut-offs, the court concluded the residents were 'poor' within the meaning of the Act.

The application was allowed and the property was declared exempt from municipal taxation.

The applicant brought an oppression application arising from prolonged noise and vibration from elevators and mechanical equipment affecting a condominium unit.

The court held that the condominium corporation failed to adequately repair and maintain the common elements after years of investigation with little meaningful action, and that its reliance on an alleged by-law issue concerning a converted room was a red herring.

Applying the oppression framework, the court found the applicant's reasonable expectations were breached and that the respondent's conduct amounted to oppression, unfair prejudice, and unfair disregard.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages, dismissed the records-production and $150 fee claims, and remained seized to supervise remedial steps.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought an application for declarations that three structures on a property vested in the City due to tax arrears were fixtures forming part of the land.

The respondent, who operated a business on the property, argued the structures were chattels that it was entitled to remove.

The court applied the test for distinguishing chattels and fixtures, finding that the structures were affixed to the land, intended for the beneficial use of the land, and could not be easily dismantled and relocated.

The court declared the structures to be part of the land owned by the City and granted a permanent injunction preventing their removal.

The applicant, Clear Channel, held a non-exclusive licence to install and maintain advertising displays at Pearson Airport.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed Clear Channel as a taxable tenant of the Crown under section 18(1) of the Assessment Act.

Clear Channel brought an application arguing it was a licensee, not a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) retained total control over the premises and paramount occupancy, while Clear Channel merely provided a service.

The court concluded Clear Channel was not a tenant and quashed the assessments.

The applicants, a public hospital and its foundation, applied for a property tax exemption for the foundation's offices, arguing they shared an identity or patrimony with the hospital.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the foundation was a separate corporate entity with its own governance, objects, and funding, and did not share a sufficient identity or patrimony with the hospital to qualify for the public hospital exemption under the Assessment Act.