Valuation / Equity Cases

Irber Holdings Limited et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (6 July 2010), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported].

The purpose of the equity test is to ensure the fair distribution of the municipal tax burden.  Therefore, the 'similar real property' must be within the same municipality as the subject property.

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. v. BCE Place Ltd. et al. (11 August 2009), (Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported].

The Divisional Court released its reasons for judgment on August 11, 2009 in the Bank Towers appeal. The Court allowed the appeal holding that the Assessment Review Board’s interpretation of “current value” and “fee simple, if unencumbered” is wrong in law. The Court found that the Board’s interpretation makes no sense and “is unreasonable, approaching the absurd”.

Hullmark Centre Inc. et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (8 May 2009), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]; [2009] O.A.R.B.D. No. 52.

Property should be assessed at its highest and best use.

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, et al. v. BCE Place Limited, et al. (14 November 2008), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported]

The Divisional Court granted MPAC and the City leave to appeal the ARB's interim decision in the Bank Towers' appeals.

Four Seasons Hotel Limited et al. v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver Sea to Sky Region (28 May 2008), (B.C.P.A.A.B.) [unreported].

B.C.’s  Property Assessment Appeal Board determined that cap rates should come from the property market, chattel valuation has become too complex, and ASRs do not always determine equity.

BCE Place Limited (171 Bay St) et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 09 et al. (13 April 2006), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

The ARB’s Decision in the long awaited Bank Towers case has thrown commercial assessment practise in Ontario into a tizzy.  Its interpretation of the definition of current value would require the assessment of commercial property on the basis of a physical state and condition that almost never occurs!

McVean Drive Estates Inc., et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 15 (26 January 2007), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported]

The date for determining the status of a property is roll return date, not January 1 and not the date the complaint was filed.

Hilton Canada Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 09 et al. (26 May 2006), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

The main issue in this hearing was business enterprise value (BEV). The ratepayer argued that, in addition to the management fee, there should be deductions for (i) brand/goodwill, (ii) cash and receivables, (iii) assembled workforce, and (iv) pre-opening marketing and sales in order to remove the BEV. 

KTH Shelburne Mfg. Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 22 et al. (23 December 2005), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]

The Board declined to follow Southam Inc. (see separate entry), and held that highest and best use is the governing principle when establishing current value.

Bramalea Ltd. v. British Columbia (Assessor for Area #09 - Vancouver) (1990), 76 D.L.R. (4d) 53, 52 B.C.L.R. (2d) 218 (B.C.C.A.)

The British Columbia Court stated, in obiter, that the 'fairness' rules in the B.C. assessment legislation could only be used to support an assessment below market value; 'fairness' could not be used to support an assessment above market value.

Balogh et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 14 et al. (1 October 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The ARB fixed a three pronged test: financial, physical, and practical, to be applied to determine if land is ‘farm land used for farm purposes’.

Charolais Developments Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation , (10 September 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The issue in Charolais was the correct value of condominium units owned by a single person and operated as an apartment building. However, the case includes a discussion of the definitions of "current value" and "encumbrance" by the chair of the ARB.

Berryman Family Trust v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 3 et al. (1 June 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].

The Board confirmed that it must determine the value of the property as of the valuation date based on its condition as of the date of the return of the roll. The Board also held that any negative impact on value due to the 'stigma' of prior environmental contamination was speculative and, therefore, refused to adjust the current value.

Southam Inc. v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area No. 14 – Surrey/White Rock) (4 May 2004), (B.C.C.A.) [unreported].

The B.C. Court of Appeal, in dealing with provincial assessment legislation, held that the 'value to owner' principle of Ontario law did not apply in British Columbia.

Calgary (City) v. Alberta (Municipal Government Board) (9 January 2004), (Alta.C.A.) [unreported].

The proper determination of a property’s market value requires consideration of its highest and best use.

IODE Children’s Hospital et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9 et al. (17 February 2003), (A.R.B.) [unreported]; conf'd (27 January 2005), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported]. (A motion to set aside the Divisional Court's decision is pending.)

The subject property consisted of land owned subject to a land lease on which the lessee had constructed a residence. The complainant (lessee) argued that the land lease reduced the value of its property compared to similar property.

Re Viva et al and Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 10 et al. (24 January 2001), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported].

The Court found that (1) a recent arms length sale is usually good evidence of current value; (2) the Board does not have to have resort to s.44(2) unless requested by the parties. This is one of the cases relied on by the Board in finding that current value takes precedence over equity.