Ontario civil | Assessment
APPEAL
Consideration of vicinity not limited to boundaries of municipality
Appellants appealed assessment review board’s decision. Appellants appealed assessments on four car dealerships. In searching for comparables, board determined that for purposes of s. 44(3)(b) of Assessment Act (Ont.), “vicinity” may not exceed boundaries of municipality in which properties under appeal were located. Appeal allowed. Applicable standard of review was correctness. It was reasonable that similar properties bore similar level of municipal taxes and that inequities in assessment be reduced by lesser. That result was within s. 44(3)(b) of act but section was broader. It spoke of inequity of assessment with scope of assessment mandate extra-municipal. On rare occasions when sufficient similar properties could not be found to board’s satisfaction within appellants’ municipality then comparison was extra-municipal. Had legislature intended municipal boundary in s. 44(3) of act, it would not have used historic words or it would have stated exception. Consideration of “vicinity” in s. 44(3)(b) of act was not limited to geographical boundaries of municipality.
Irber Holdings Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 09 (Aug. 13, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., Crane and Wilton-Siegel JJ., File No. DC-10-392-ML) Decision at 65 O.M.B.R. 436 was reversed. 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 469.
Consideration of vicinity not limited to boundaries of municipality
Appellants appealed assessment review board’s decision. Appellants appealed assessments on four car dealerships. In searching for comparables, board determined that for purposes of s. 44(3)(b) of Assessment Act (Ont.), “vicinity” may not exceed boundaries of municipality in which properties under appeal were located. Appeal allowed. Applicable standard of review was correctness. It was reasonable that similar properties bore similar level of municipal taxes and that inequities in assessment be reduced by lesser. That result was within s. 44(3)(b) of act but section was broader. It spoke of inequity of assessment with scope of assessment mandate extra-municipal. On rare occasions when sufficient similar properties could not be found to board’s satisfaction within appellants’ municipality then comparison was extra-municipal. Had legislature intended municipal boundary in s. 44(3) of act, it would not have used historic words or it would have stated exception. Consideration of “vicinity” in s. 44(3)(b) of act was not limited to geographical boundaries of municipality.
Irber Holdings Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 09 (Aug. 13, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., Crane and Wilton-Siegel JJ., File No. DC-10-392-ML) Decision at 65 O.M.B.R. 436 was reversed. 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 469.
