5 total
Bank towers must be assessed using market rents and normal vacancy rates, not as vacant properties.
The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.
The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.
The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.
The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.
Appeal dismissed; landlord's decision not to use working papers for property tax allocation was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease clause concerning the allocation of property taxes.
The lease gave the respondent discretion to use working papers if deemed sufficient.
The application judge found the respondent's decision not to use the working papers was reasonable and consistent with the lease.
The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that working papers are not intended to apply to individual premises and their unreliability is a legitimate consideration.
The appeal was dismissed.
Assessment Review Board erred in valuing commercial towers as vacant; 'current value' includes leasehold interests.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.
The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.
The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.
Assessment Review Board erred in law by interpreting 'fee simple, if unencumbered' to require valuing income-producing properties as vacant.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes in Toronto.
The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the statutory phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant, ignoring existing leases.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.
The Court held that the whole of the land must be assessed, and in the context of income-producing properties, 'fee simple, if unencumbered' means value calculated using market rents rather than actual rents, ensuring all interests in the land are valued.
Assessment Review Board erred in interpreting 'fee simple, if unencumbered' to require valuing income-producing properties as vacant.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of six large office complexes.
The Board had accepted the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'current value' as 'fee simple, if unencumbered' required the properties to be valued as if vacant, ignoring existing leases.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was wrong in law.
The Court found that the entire ownership interest, including both the landlord's and tenants' interests, must be valued, and that the 1997 amendment to the Assessment Act was intended to ensure consistency in valuation by requiring the use of market rents rather than actual rents.
