Municipal Act Cases

City of Montreal v. Montreal Port Authority, et al (15 April 2010), (S.C.C.) [unreported]; 2010 SCC 14.

A federal PILT-paying body must calculate is PILT payment based on the tax and assessment systems that actually exist in the municipality where the property is located.

Home Depot Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the Town of Markham (8 March 2010), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported].

The purpose of s.331 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is to ensure tax fairness for eligible properties.  It does not provide an additional right to correct errors in a property's tax calculation.

Home Depot Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the Town of Markham (26 June 2009), (Ont.S.C. - Div.Ct.) [unreported]

The purpose of Municipal Act is to tax eligible properties equitably.

Neamsby Investsments Inc. v. The Corporation of the Town of Markham (8 September 2008), (Ont. Div. Ct.), [unreported].

Divisional Court dismisses Neamsby's appeal.

Neamsby Investsments Inc. v. The Corporation of the Town of Markham (23 November 2007), (Ont. S.C.), [unreported].

"Shall" in s.331(9) (delivery of comparables within 60 days) of the Municipal Act, 2001 is premissive, not mandatory.

1392290 Ontario Limited et al. v. Corporation of the Town of Ajax (6 November 2007), (Ont.S.C.J.) [unreported]

Eligible property provisions apply retrospectively not retroactively: a severence in 2000 was subject to the eligibility criteria that came into effect in 2001.

Al Reisman Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (13 June 2007), (A. R. B.) [unreported].

The Assessment Review Board declined to find that the City of Toronto’s authorization to the ARB to exercise powers and functions of the municipality under section 4, of O. Reg. 399/03 under the Municipal Act 2001 were without legal effect or consequence, or to make finding that regulation conferred no authority to delegate decision making authority.

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City of St. Catharines (7 April 2006), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The use of the permissive "may" in what is now s.357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not give a municipality discretion to refuse to refund taxes to applicants that otherwise meet the criteria in the legislation.

WBH Woodstock Ltd. v. Woodstock (City) (29 June 2005), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

Section 359(1) of the Municipal Act cannot be used to correct errors that should have been corrected by way of a s.40 assessment complaint.

Yonge Street Hotels Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al., (4 May 2005), (Ont.C.A.) [unreported]

Appeal of Yonge Street Hotels from dismissal of application the hotel was "eligible property" within section 447.34.1(16) of the Municipal Act. Appeal dismissed. The retrofit of a building is not an 'erection' of a building within the section. The Court is not at liberty to overcome or ignore legislative distinctions by analysis of some free-standing principal of fairness.

Ghislabrazmar Limited et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 03, et al. (14 March, 2005), [unreported] (Ont. A.R.B.)

Council ratified assessment complaints, made by a member of staff as part of their administrative functions, fourteen months after the complaints were filed. The Board found that this was not a 'reasonable' period of time. Therefore, the complaints were dismissed.

Eastern Demolition and Recyclers Ltd. v. Long Harbour and Arlington Heights (Town) (15 November 2004), (Nfld.C.A.) [unreported].

The Court found a municipality discriminated when it imposed a business tax on one company to the exclusion of other business that should have been taxed under the legislation.

Inco Ltd. v. Greater Sudbury (City) et al. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 369 Div.Ct.); leave ref'd (21 September 2004), (Ont.C.A.) [unreported].

The Divisional Court held, relying on the pre-amended provisions of the Municipal Act, that a municipal council must authorize or ratify the pursuit of an assessment complaint within a 'reasonable' time and that it will be a question of fact in each case whether the time is reasonable.

Yonge Street Hotels Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al. (25 June 2004), (Ont.S.C.J.) [unreported].

The restoration, redevelopment or reconstruction of an existing foundation and structure is not the erection of a new building such to make the property “eligible property� within the meaning of section 447.34.1 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45. (Appeal decision summarized separately).

Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. City of Toronto (21 January 2004), (O.M.B.) [unreported].

On a s.442 (now s.357) application, the OMB aknowledged that demolitions may improve the value of a site, but the municipality must establish the increase in value. The Board also found that demolitions occurring prior to the return of the roll were properly the subject matter of an assessment complaint and, therefore, dismissed any applications made for demolitions which occurred prior to roll return.

Friedberg & Co. Inc., et al. v. Corporation of the City of Toronto (2004) 71 O.R. (3d) 640(C.A.).

The Court of Appeal held that an incorrect categorization of business assessment was an error in fact and not an error in judgement when the assessing authority did not have the correct facts when making its categorization decision.

Fourth Generation Realty Corporation et al. v. City of Ottawa (2004), 50 M.P.L.R. (3d) 19 (Ont.S.C.J.); conf'd 18 May 2005), (Ont.C.A.) [unreported].

The Court found that a municipal by-law to provide grants to non-commercial property owners facing significant tax increases was not illegal. The Court found that a court must adopt a deferential approach to municipal governments and apply a liberal and benevolent approach to the interpretation of their powers. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.