Stephen Longo

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $9,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow it to file Statements of Response after the deadline had passed.

Uxbridge argued that administrative challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of a significant Board decision regarding gravel pit valuation constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Uxbridge had made a conscious decision not to participate initially and that the release of a precedent-setting decision does not amount to an exceptional circumstance justifying an extension.

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.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a land assembly of five contiguous properties on King Street West in Toronto for the 2014-2020 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the properties based on a highest and best use of a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to rebut the presumption that the highest and best use is the existing use as 2 and 3-storey commercial buildings, as MPAC did not provide sufficient economic analysis to prove the financial feasibility of the proposed development.

The Board reduced the assessments to the current values proposed by the appellants' expert based on the existing use.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for disclosure in its property assessment appeals regarding three Loblaw Big Box grocery stores.

The City requested various documents including leases, sale agreements, appraisals, building plans, construction costs, and store sales data to support its valuation experts' analyses using the income, direct sales comparison, and cost approaches.

The property owners opposed most requests, arguing the documents were irrelevant, not probative, or highly confidential.

The Assessment Review Board granted the majority of the City's requests, finding the documents relevant to the issues in dispute and their disclosure proportionate, while noting that relevance for disclosure purposes does not determine ultimate admissibility or weight at the hearing.

The respondents brought motions to strike the appellant's Amended Statement of Issues and Reply, arguing it was served past the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that its rules do not provide for striking pleadings.

However, because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for missing the deadline to serve its Amended Statement of Issues, it cannot raise any new issues at the hearing that were not in its original Statement of Issues or its Amended Reply.

The Amended Reply was served on time and may be relied upon.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel prevented the appellant from appealing the current value assessment of its property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC argued the issues were already decided in a 2015 Board decision concerning the same property for the 2006-2012 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the first part of the issue estoppel test was not met because determining the correct current value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date is not the same question as determining the value for the 2005 and 2008 valuation dates.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years due to the Appellants' failure to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

The Appellants had obtained an extension from MPAC but failed to obtain consent from the City.

The Board found that while the Appellants failed to comply with the Rules, the breach had been cured by the subsequent filing of the Statement of Issues and an expert report.

Given the lack of overwhelming prejudice to the City and the severe consequences of dismissal, the Board denied the motion to dismiss.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a hearing set due to their failure to comply with document filing deadlines under the Assessment Review Board's new process.

The Board found that exceptional circumstances existed to permit late filing of documents, as these were the first appeals to proceed through the new process and involved multiple appellants and outside experts.

Applying the factors under Rule 84, the Board granted the adjournment, setting new dates for a settlement meeting, expert report exchange, and document filing.

The appellant and MPAC requested admission to the Board's Special Property Program to dispense with the requirement to file expert reports, and sought an extension of time to meet their disclosure obligations after missing the deadlines in the Schedule of Events.

The Board denied both requests.

The property did not meet the complexity requirements for the Special Property Program, and the parties failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify altering the Schedule of Events under Rule 82.

The appellant and MPAC requested admission to the Board's Special Property Program to dispense with the requirement to file expert reports, and sought an extension of time to meet their disclosure obligations.

The Board denied both requests.

The Board found that the property did not meet the complexity or special value considerations required for the Special Property Program.

Furthermore, the parties failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify altering the Schedule of Events under Rule 82.

The applicants, a private management company and a school board, sought a declaration that a sports facility operated by the company on school board land was exempt from property tax.

The municipal assessment corporation had assessed the land as taxable, arguing the company was a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the licence agreement between the company and the school board created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The company satisfied the essential elements for rateable occupation, including actual occupation, exclusivity, value, and permanence.

Consequently, the land was not exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act.

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed after its representative failed to file a Statement of Issues due to an administrative oversight.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding no fault on the part of the assessed person and no prejudice to any party.

General Motors appealed the property tax assessments for its Windsor transmission plant for the 2009-2014 taxation years.

The plant operated until July 2010 and was subsequently sold as vacant land in 2014.

The Assessment Review Board held that for the 2009 and 2010 taxation years, the plant's highest and best use was as an operating factory, and valued it using the cost approach at $8,584,000.

For the 2011-2014 taxation years, the Board found the highest and best use was as scrap, and relied on the 2014 sale price to determine a current value of $6,348,000.

The Board rejected arguments that a restrictive covenant on the 2014 sale precluded its use as evidence of value, and found no inequity requiring further reduction of the assessments.

The applicant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that cancelled the administrative reinstatement of the respondent taxpayer's property assessment appeal.

The Board member had exercised discretion to not relieve against MPAC's irregular service by email of a Special Notice requesting a higher assessment, effectively confirming the taxpayer's withdrawal of its appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board member's reasons for exercising her discretion were based on an erroneous view of the Assessment Act and assumed facts not argued before her, raising questions of law of broad importance to the assessment system.

The moving party, 100 Wynford Portfolio Inc., brought a motion to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to produce third-party income, expense, and assessment information for comparable properties in relation to its property assessment appeals.

The moving party argued the information was relevant to determining fair market rents and area calculations for its commercial office building.

MPAC and the third-party property owners consented to the production subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party had complied with notice requirements, and ordered MPAC to produce the requested documents to the moving party's counsel and consultants upon execution of the undertakings.

The moving parties brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board reviewed the grounds for review under Rule 145, noting that the parties had been adequately warned of the consequences of non-compliance under the Board's new rules.

Although the Board found that the strict grounds for review were not met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not fully forewarned of how strictly the new rules would be enforced.

The moving party brought a motion on consent to correct a palpable error in the assessment roll for a condominium parking unit for the 2011-2014 taxation years.

The property had remained on the parent roll with the developer listed as the assessed person, resulting in the moving party inheriting historic tax arrears.

The City wrote off the arrears, leaving only the incorrect ownership and description on the roll.

The Assessment Review Board found that the failure to apportion and reflect the correct ownership was a palpable error under s. 40.1(a) of the Assessment Act and ordered the roll corrected.