Classification CasesRichview Gate Building Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (21 October 2005), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported]
Vacant land zoned for high density residential development on which a high-rise condominium was to be built, was correctly classified as "multi-residential".
Torontario Properties Limited et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al., (14 July 2005), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]
The Board found that the landscaped grounds surrounding an office building did not qualify as 'excess land' because the land had been modified sufficiently to constitute development.
Jolis Investments Ontario Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al., (22 June 2005), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported].
The Board found that it had the jurisdiction to review its own decisions. As a result, it declined to state a case to the Divisional Court on this issue.
Brisebois et al., v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 1 et al. (15 March 2005), [unreported] (Ont. A.R.B.)
Using a 'primary purpose' test, the Board determined that the removal of peat moss from land was a 'farm purpose' if the peat was being removed as part of the preparation of the land for farming.
699958 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (22 December 2004), (Ont. A.R.B.) [unreported]: (Motion for Leave to Appeal to Divisional Court Dismissed.)
The property had 6 ‘original’ residential units. Subsequent to the municipality adopting the new multi-residential tax class, the complainant added 6 ‘new’ residential units. The issue was whether the original units should be classified as residential or multi-residential.
Kidinks Holdings Inc. v. City of Kingston et al. (6 December 2004), [unreported] (Ont.A.R.B.).
The complainant asserted that its vacant land, which included land on which a condominium development was proposed and water lots on which a marina and other water uses were proposed, was principally zoned for residential purposes and should be included in the residential, rather than the multi-residential, tax class.
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. R.M.L. Parking Ltd. et al. (24 September 2004), (Ont.Div.Ct.) [unreported].
The Divisional Court has granted MPAC leave to appeal a decision of the ARB whereby the ARB classified as residential that portion of a parking garage in a commercial property which was used by a neighbouring residential condominium.
T. Sangs Investments Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 09, et al. (27 May 2004), (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported].
The subject property had more than seven units and was included in the multi-residential tax class. The complainant asserted that the units were not ‘self-contained’ and, therefore, the property should be classified in the residential tax class.
Nowina et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 et al. (27 August 2003) (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported] and (18 December 2003) (Ont.A.R.B.) [unreported]
On a preliminary motion, the ARB held that the complainant was 'estopped' from asserting a different current value than that previously determined by the Board for a different tax year with the same base year.
At the hearing, the subject property had seven units, but the complainant argued that one of the units was not ‘self-contained’ because it was in an extremely poor state of repair and, therefore, the property should be classified as residential.