Source: http://cdglaw.net/important-cases/procedure/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:21:06+00:00

Document:
St. George and St. Rueiss Coptic Orthodox Church et al v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (2016), 130 O.R. (3d) 105 (Ont.S.C.J.); 2016 ONSC 1723.
The Court applied a purposeful approach in determining that a school located on church property but operated by third parties was exempt from taxation.
Linamar Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, et al.  O.A.R.B.D. No. 175.
The ARB agreed to set aside its own decision and implement the parties’ settlement.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region 23 v. North American Railway Hall of Fame,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 194.
The ARB has no jurisdiction to determine the extent of an exemption, even if the exemption itself is agreed.
Tribute Resources Inc. v. Ontario Energy Board et al. 2017 ONSC 5822.
Considerations for whether an intervenor should be permitted to intervene on an assessment appeal.
1056626 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., 2015 ONSC 7967 (Div.Ct).
Judicial review is not available when the Act provides for an appeal route.
The real issue that was decided by the Court was whether a judicial review was appropriate in light of the appeal mechanism contained in s. 43.1 of the Act. The strong message coming from this case is that, absent exceptional circumstances, it is not.
There is also discussion about what a litigant should do if they wish to both review (at the Board) and appeal a Board’s decision. At paragraph 13 – 14, the court suggests that a party could wait to appeal a decision until a review request is decided, even if the review process takes longer than 30 days, but at paragraph 14 the court seems to conflate the ideas of appealing a decision vs. appealing a review decision.
Canadian Tire Corp. v. Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 2, 88 O.M.B.R. 523, 2016 CarswellOnt 278.
The municipality hired a paralegal consulting firm (MTE) to act for it. The assessed (Canadian Tire – CTC) hired a law firm who retained the services of an appraisal firm (AEC). One of the appraisers – Mr. Davies – left AEC to begin employment with MTE. That appraiser had done work on the file at AEC. The Board disqualified MTE from acting for the municipalities because of a conflict of interest.
Canadian Tire Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 15,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 10.
Incorrectly describing land as three parcels rather than one was a palpable error.
Avery v. Pointes Protection Association, 2016 ONSC 6463.
The old test on a motion for leave to appeal of “reason to doubt the correctness of the decision” has been replaced with: “a court being asked to grant leave from a decision of the Board must determine the likely standard of review to be applied on the appeal and apply that standard to the question of leave”.
Bleeman Holdings Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 9,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 5, 2017 CarswellOnt 543, 93 O.M.B.R. 342.
This decision on a ratepayer’s production motion held that the ‘relevant’ and ‘proportionate’ productions for similar property for equity purposes is different than for comparable properties for valuation purposes.
Koplowicz v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 9,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 71.
The ARB agreed to re-instate a withdrawn appeal on the basis that the parties were under a misapprehension as to the assessed value.
Viva Properties Ltd. v. Toronto ( City ),  O.A.R.B.D. No. 89.
This case discusses the ARB’s criteria for granting adjournments.
1490804 Ontario Limited, et al. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al,. O.A.R.B.D. No. 91.
On this review decision, the Board confirmed that the correct commencement date for an omitted assessment is the first day on which the buildings existed rather than the first day on which the buildings could be occupied.
NAV Canada v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 15,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 135.
The Board denied a request to amend pleadings shortly before a hearing was set to commence.
Vanzuylen v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 5,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 109.
In this decision, which denied the ratepayer’s request for costs, the Board sets out the criteria it will use.
2302021 Ontario Limited v. Municpal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 15,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 48.
Parties have an obligation to request production of relevant documents.
Sabourin v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 3,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 115.
A newly constructed condominium unit is assessable to the first purchaser as of the registration date of their purchase. The unit may be assessable prior to that date, but it is not assessable to the first purchaser because they do not own the land.
Robic v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 95.
The ARB denied the appellant’s disclosure motion because: (1) the requested information had been produced in another format; (2) the documents dealt with an issue not raised in the appellant’s disclosure package; (3) the appellant did not tie the request to a specific issue in dispute; and (4) notes on comparable sales are not relevant – it is the fact of the sales that drives the value.
Walmart Canada Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 1,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 140.
Disproportionately large production requests of questionable probative value will not be ordered even if the material may be relevant. Documents produced in other appeals are not presumed to be relevant for appeals that have similar issues.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No 7 v. Cherry, et al.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 100.
The property owner / appellant resisted an inspection of their home. MPAC failed to follow-up promptly after the Board made an inspection order. MPAC sought a dismissal for non-compliance. The Board held that most cases of non-compliance can be dealt with through an aware of costs, which the Board can order on its own initiative. ‘Many’ willful breaches of Board orders will be unreasonable and in bad faith, and thus fall within the class of cases eligible for a costs award.
Talon International Development Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9 et al.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 88.
There is no review from a decision of the Board denying a re-instatement.
Jay Patry Enterprises Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 5 et al.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 151.
DeJong (c.o.b. Tridon Group Ltd.) v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 23 et al.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 149.
Zarichansky v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 2,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 148.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 9 v. Abe-Oldenburg,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 175.
1763931 Ontario Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 30,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 207.
The Board has no legal authority to interfere with a RfR settlement. Ratepayers cannot sign RfR minutes and then proceed with an appeal, even if the appeal is deemed. Doing so undermines the stability of the RfR process and permitting such an appeal would undermine finality.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 19 v. Wentworth Property Management Inc.,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 217.
A failure to file a statement of issues is a clear, egregious and unilateral failure to comply with the Rules giving rise to grounds for a dismissal. Dismissal was appropriate in this case because failure prejudiced MPAC by causing it to incur costs and by negatively impacting its overall case management.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region 5 v. Scrymgeour,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 257.
The Board confirmed that ‘palpable’ errors are ‘true inadvertent and unintentional’ errors that mischaracterizes the fundamental nature or legal character of the property. The Board’s discretion to correct a palpable error should only be exercised where denying relief would be ‘unreasonable, unfair and highly prejudicial.’ Here, the ratepayer attempted to correct the error through the RfR process and was suffering from personal issues. In these circumstances, the ARB created palpable error appeals.
Wellington (County) v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 22,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 47.
The Board found that there were errors in the assessment rolls for certain years and that those errors were palpable errors. However, the Board found that this is not an appropriate case for the Board to exercise its discretion to extend time for bringing appeals.
In reaching its decision the Board confirmed that it will exercise its discretion only in exceptional cases where denying relief would be unreasonable, unfair and highly prejudicial.
The Board found that the errors were “inadvertent” because information was not conveyed to MPAC.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region 9 v. Precise Capital Management,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 253.
The failure to file a statement of issues, along with other breaches, was a clear, egregious, and unilateral breach of the Board’s Rules. The failure prejudiced MPAC by causing it to incur costs and by negatively impacting MPAC’s ability to manage its caseload.
Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 7 v. Cherry,  O.A.R.B.D. No. 247.
This is the follow-up from the Board’s earlier decision ( O.A.R.B.D. No. 100) where it held that most breaches of its Rules can be dealt with by an award of costs. Subsequent to the decision, the appellants continued to refuse to arrange an inspection. Here, the Board did dismiss the appeals because the appellants’ non-compliance is “significant, ongoing, and prevents MPAC from being able to prepare a case …”.
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Zarichansky, 2018 ONSC 7192.
The Court granted MPAC leave to appeal the ARB’s finding that a failure by MPAC to meet its onus results in the assessment being fixed at the last uncontested value. In granting leave, the Court commented that there is ‘nothing in the Act that permits the Board to abdicate its responsibility to determine the current value or to ignore the statutory valuation date.’ The Court held that the Board’s finding ‘does not appear’ to be supported by the language or scheme of the Act.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.