5 total
Costs fixed at $70,500 plus disbursements for each successful appellant in complex property assessment appeal.
Following a successful appeal regarding the interpretation of 'fee simple, if unencumbered' for property assessment purposes, the appellants (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.
The respondents argued the claimed fees were excessive and that the appellants should have coordinated their submissions.
The court found the issues complex, the amounts at stake substantial, and no unnecessary overlap in arguments.
Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at $70,500 for fees and counsel fees for each appellant, plus their respective disbursements.
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.
Leave to appeal granted to review the Assessment Review Board's interpretation of 'current value' for commercial properties.
The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.
The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.
The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.
Leave to appeal was granted.
