Procedural Cases

City of Toronto v. Toronto Port Authority (24 June 2010), (F.C.) [unreported]; 2010 FC 687.

The PILTs-DAP erred in law in relying on evidence not submitted by the parties and by rejecting the evidence showing the valuation method in use under Ontario's assessment regime.

East of Bay (2003) Development Corporation v City of Toronto et al. (8 June 2010), (Ont.S.C.J.) [unreported]

Land that is intentionally omitted from the assessment roll cannot be assessed via omitted assessment.

Niagara River Coalition v. Corportion of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (10 March 2010), (Ont.C.A.) [unreported]; 2010 ONCA 173

Expert evidence on the interpretation of an Official Plan is inadmissible because the interpretation is a question of law.

918165 Ontario Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, et al. (5 March 2010), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported]

Statements of Issues and Responses filed in the old pre-hearing stream continue to bind the parties even if the complaints are transferred to the Direct Hearing Stream under the Board's new rules.

City of Windsor v. Windsor Asset Management GO Ltd. et al. (January 9, 2009), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]; [2009] O.A.R.B.D. No. 9.

The municipality is entitled to receive copies of all of the productions in an appeal.

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 18 et al. (27 March 2009), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

On a motion concerning the confidentiality of certain documents, the ARB confirmed (1) a municipality's entitlement to receive relevant documents, and (2) the importance of maintaining confidentiality when productions were being made to competitors.

1609830 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al. (19 September 2008), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported]

The ARB was correct is creating an omission thus requiring MPAC to issue an omitted assessment.

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, et al. v. M & L Lightview Apartments Inc., et al. (19 August 2008), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported].

Only representatives authorized by the Law Society Act may represent parties at the ARB.

Wolf v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al., (6 August 2008), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported].

Third party notice requirements are met if the appellant acted "reasonably and in good faith" in selecting an address for service under s.40(3) of the Assessment Act.

Woodbine Entertainment Group v. Municipal Proeprty Assessment Corporation et al. (24 April 2007), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The Board set out the factors it will consider in determining whether to order production from non-parties.

A. Mantella & Sons Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (27 October 2006), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported]

The Board granted MPAC's motion for review deciding that s. 33 was available to capture assessments that could have been made under s. 34, but were omitted.

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 27 et al. v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (15 September 2006), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

The ARB held that the "semblance of relevancy" test applies in determining whether documents are required to be produced.

Oxford Properties Group Inc. et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Commissioner, et al. (13 April 2006), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported].

On a motion by the complainant to quash a summons issued to compel attendance of president and CEO of the complainant, the Board held that the onus was on the party seeking to set aside the summons to convince the Board that the motion should be granted.

Corporation of the City of Toronto v. The Townhouses of Hogg’s Hollow Inc. et al. (21 April 2006), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

The Board found that fulfillment of the notice requirement in s.40(3) was a pre-condition to the establishment of a valid complaint and that ‘actual’ notice was required. In this case, as actual notice was not given to the assessed person, the complaint was quashed.

The [Manitoba] Municipal Assessment Act C.C.S.M. c.M226

Ontario's Ombudsman refers to the Manitoba assessment legislation in his report as an example of a jurisdiction that has placed on the onus on the assessor in assessment complaints.

Mattamy (Castlemore) Ltd., et al. v City of Brampton, et al. (14 October 2005), [unreported] (Ont.Div.Ct.).

The ARB did not have jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint because of the municipality's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 45 (Notice Seeking a Higher Assessment).

Scherer et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 13 et al. (26 January 2005), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

MPAC brought a motion for production of relevant information – in the form of particulars – prior to responding to the complainant’s statement of issues. The Board order the information produced because it was relevant and necessary to formulate a complete response to the issues raised.

Sunrise of Markham Limited et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 14 et al. (27 July 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The complainants had persistently failed to comply with the Board’s Rules and procedural orders concerning the information required to be included in statements of issues. MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the complaints. The Board granted the motion because: (1) the complainant had had an opportunity to cure the default and, without reasonable excuse failed to do so; and (2) the municipalities were prejudiced as a result of the uncertainty and delay in establishing the final assessments for these high valued properties.

3347443 Canada Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 7 et al. (10 May 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The Board created a late 2001 complainant on the basis that the complainant did not become aware of the assessment for 2001 until advised by MPAC that no complaint was outstanding for that taxation year. The Board also noted the ‘complete disinterest’ of the municipality.

Trans-Gate Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al. (28 January 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The assessed person brought a motion for an order that the complaint filed by the municipality was invalid because the municipal official who filed the complaint was not authorized by Council. The Board found that the filing of a report to Council and the subsequent general confirming by-law passed by Council was sufficient authorization and, therefore, the complaint was valid.

3170497 Canada Inc.. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 13 et al. (5 July 2002), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

MPAC brought a motion for production of relevant information – in the form of particulars – prior to responding to the complainant’s statement of issues. The Board order the information produced because it was relevant and necessary to formulate a complete response to the issues raised.