4 total
Motion for leave to appeal Assessment Review Board decision granted.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.
Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.
Board declines to amend 2017 property assessment for plant expansion as production capacity remained unchanged.
The Appellant appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.
In previous interim decisions, the Board confirmed the current values for 2009-2022.
MPAC sought to amend the 2017 current value to reflect a supplementary assessment for a body shop expansion completed mid-year.
The Board found that under the agreed Production Capacity Cost Approach Method, the expansion did not change the facility's normalized annual production capacity, and therefore did not increase the Replacement Cost New.
The Board concluded no amendment to the 2017 current value was required and directed the parties to finalize apportionments.
Board ordered equitable reductions to assembly plant's property assessments based on lower construction cost rates.
The Appellant, General Motors of Canada Company, appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.
The parties agreed that an equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act but disagreed on the quantum.
The Board found that the best evidence to determine the equitable reduction was the Appellant's approach, which focused on the lower average construction cost rates used by MPAC to calculate the replacement cost new for similar properties.
The Board ordered reductions to the current values for the taxation years under appeal based on the Appellant's proposed percentage reductions, but rejected the Appellant's request for an additional adjustment.
Motion for disclosure in property assessment appeal granted in part based on relevance and proportionality.
The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the property owner and MPAC in an assessment appeal concerning a casino property.
The Owner opposed the motion, arguing it was out of time and seeking dismissal of the appeals.
The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely and declined to address the Owner's dismissal request on a disclosure motion.
Applying the test of relevance and proportionality, the Board ordered the Owner to disclose lease information, valuation analyses for the 2016 base year, and construction costs for the five years preceding the valuation date.
The Board declined to order MPAC to disclose certain documents protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act because the City had not provided the requisite statutory notice to affected third parties.
