Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers


TOPICS


Ontario Tax - Assessment Act - Appeals

. Manulife Ontario Property Inc. v. MPAC and Ottawa (City) [equitable adjustment]

In Manulife Ontario Property Inc. v. MPAC and Ottawa (City) (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers the 'equitable adjustment' appeal provision of the Assessment Act [s.44(3)(b)] ['have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed']:
[36] Manulife cited the principles of equity in taxation citing Toronto (City) v MPAC, 2013 ONSC 6137 at para. 30:
The primary objective of the Act is to achieve equity in taxation. Equity will result when every parcel of land bears its proportionate and fair share of the tax burden for the community. This principle favours ensuring the correctness of the assessments upon which the tax payable is based. On the other hand, it is also the intention of the legislation to ensure a stable and reliable tax base. This principle favours finality. The principles of equity and finality are often in conflict and each must be weighed in the balance in arriving at the proper interpretation of the legislation.
....

Did the Board fail to fulfill its statutory obligations under the s. 44(3)(b) of the Act to consider whether the assessments under appeal are equitable compared to assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

[40] Manulife submits that the Board was required to consider anew the issue of whether the assessments for 2021-22 were “equitable compared to assessments of similar lands in the vicinity” The Board erred because it was required do so by statute.

[41] I do not agree. Manulife raised the equitable comparison issue in its “Statement of Issues” filed for the 2017-2020 appeals, arguing that “the assessment of the Subject Property is inequitable, as compared to the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.” Manulife included a list of similar lands in the vicinity. The parties settled this issue and the Board incorporated an equitable adjustment into the 2017-2020 orders. In doing so, it fulfilled its statutory obligations to determine the CVA of the office building as of January 1, 2016.
. Manulife v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al

In Manulife v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a s.43.1(1) Assessment Act leave to appeal (to the Divisional Court) motion:
[11] An appeal of a decision of the Board lies to the Divisional Court, with leave on questions of law: Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, s. 43.1(1) (the “Act”).

[12] MPAC and Ottawa submit that the proposed appeal by Manulife involves an issue of mixed fact and law and, therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction. I disagree. In my view, the issue is whether the Board misapplied the doctrine of issue estoppel, which is a question of law. I find that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal if leave is granted.

[13] In granting leave to appeal, the Court must be satisfied that:
a. There is reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board’s decision; and

b. The question is an important question of law: City of Dryden v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al, 2016 ONSC 478, 49 M.P.L.R. (5th) 104, at para. 2, citing Via Rail Canada Inc. v. MCAP, 2015 ONSC 7459, 87 O.M.B.R. 42, at paras. 15-17.
A: There is good reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board’s decision

[14] There is reason to doubt the correctness of a decision if it is “open to very serious debate”: Exchange Tower v. Municipal Property, 2012 ONSC 415, 97 M.P.L.R. (4th) 200, at paras. 17-18.

....

B: The legal issue is important

[33] The test for leave to appeal requires a moving party to demonstrate both a good reason to doubt the correctness of the impugned decision and the importance of the legal issue.

[34] A legal issue is considered important when it goes beyond the interest of the immediate parties and involves questions of general importance: Sahota v. Sahota, 2015 CanLII 20903 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at para. 5.
At paras 15-32 the court considers, and grants, leave to appeal.

. Drewlo Holdings v. MPAC

In Drewlo Holdings v. MPAC (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court sets out the test for leave to appeal, here in an Assessment Act s.43.1(1) appeal:
[24] The Act sets out the appeal route in s. 43.1(1). An appeal lies from the Board to the Divisional Court, with leave, on a question of law.

[25] The parties agree on the applicable test for leave to appeal in this context, as set out in Via Rail Canada Inc. v. MPAC, 2015 ONSC 7459. In order to grant leave to appeal, the court must be satisfied that:
(a) There is some reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board’s Decision; and

(b) The appeal involves an important question of law meriting the attention of the Divisional Court.
[26] As noted in Via Rail, at para. 17, to meet the first branch of the test, the party seeking leave to appeal need not show that the Board’s Decision was wrong or even probably wrong. This part of the test is satisfied if the correctness of the Decision is “open to very serious debate”.

[27] If there are conflicting decisions on an issue, this may give reason to doubt the correctness of a decision. If the Board has applied legal tests or factors that are novel or not in accordance with established case law, the threshold of “open to very serious debate” may be met (see: Via Rail, at para. 18).


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 21-02-24
By: admin