Tribunals Ontario  
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario  
Assessment  
Commission de révision de  
Review Board  
l’évaluation foncière  
ISSUE DATE:  
June 21, 2022  
FILE NO.: DM 177142  
Assessed Person(s):  
Appellant(s):  
National Car Rental (Canada) Inc., Aviscar Inc., Budget Car Inc.,  
Dollar Thrifty Auto Group Canada Inc., and Hertz Canada Limited  
National Car Rental (Canada) Inc., Aviscar Inc., Budget Car Inc.,  
Dollar Thrifty Auto Group Canada Inc., and Hertz Canada Limited  
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15  
City of Mississauga  
0 Airport Road, Terminal 1  
City of Mississauga  
2105-050-113-60091-0000, 2105-050-113-60092-0000,  
2105-050-113-60093-0000, 2105-050-113-60094-0000 and  
2105-050-113-60095-0000  
Respondent(s):  
Respondent(s):  
Property Location(s):  
Municipality(ies):  
Roll Number(s):  
Appeal Number(s):  
Taxation Year(s):  
Hearing Event No.:  
Legislative Authority:  
See Schedule A  
2017-2022  
763270  
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31  
APPEARANCES:  
Parties  
Counsel  
National Car Rental (Canada) Inc.,  
Aviscar Inc., Budget Car Inc.,  
Dollar Thrifty Auto Group Canada Inc. and  
Hertz Canada Limited  
Lauren Lackie  
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation  
City of Mississauga  
Donald G. Mitchell  
Brad Teichman  
REQUEST FOR:  
HEARD:  
Schedule separate appeal proceeding for 2021 taxation year  
March 11, 2022 in writing  
ADJUDICATOR(S):  
Dirk VanderBent, Vice-Chair  
MOTION DECISION  
2
DM 177142  
OVERVIEW  
[1]  
Pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), appeals  
for the 2017 taxation year were filed by the owners (the “Appellants”) of five properties  
located at the Pearson International Airport (the “Subject Properties”) which are  
occupied by car rental businesses.  
[2]  
As will be described in greater detail below, the Act requires that the Municipal  
Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conduct a general reassessment, once  
every four years, to update the current value of all properties in Ontario (“General  
Reassessment Value”). Section 19.2(1) prescribes a single valuation day for  
determining this value which will apply to several taxation years (commonly described as  
an ‘assessment cycle’). In this case, the valuation day specified for the 2017 to 2020  
taxation years is January 1, 2016.  
[3]  
However, s. 19.2(5) also authorizes the Minister of Finance to prescribe a  
valuation day that is different from the valuation day prescribed in s. 19.2(1). Pursuant  
to O. Reg. 186/20, the Minister of Finance has set January 1, 2016 as the valuation day  
for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years. In effect, therefore, the assessment cycle is  
extended to include seven taxation years from 2017 to 2023. For the Subject  
Properties, pursuant to the deeming provision in s. 40(26), there are now deemed  
appeals for the 2018 to 2022 taxation years, in addition to the original 2017 appeals.  
These appeal proceedings are currently before the Assessment Review Board (the  
“Board”), as they have not yet been adjudicated by the Board or resolved by agreement  
of the parties.  
[4]  
It is not disputed that MPAC has valued the Subject Properties as income  
producing properties. The Appellants assert that disruptions caused by the COVID-19  
pandemic, together with associated government restrictions, which the Board  
collectively refers to as “the COVID-19 Impact”, have resulted in a significant reduction  
3
DM 177142  
of the income earned by the Subject Properties during the 2020 calendar year, which, in  
turn, could reduce their values assessed as of the date for the return of the Assessment  
Roll, i.e. December 15, 2020 for the 2021 taxation year. The Appellants assert this  
constitutes a change in the ‘state and condition’ of the Subject Properties, and,  
therefore, the current value of the Subject Properties to be reported on the Assessment  
Roll for the 2021 taxation year should be reassessed as of December 15, 2020, which  
they describe as the ‘state and condition’ date. As noted above, they argue that the  
current value of the Subject Properties determined by such reassessment will be lower  
than the current value reported on the Assessment Roll for previous taxation years.  
[5]  
MPAC and the City of Mississauga (the “Municipality”) adopt the ‘state and  
condition’ terminology, which appears to suggest that, in some circumstances, the  
current value of the Subject Properties could be reassessed on the ‘state and condition  
date’. However, MPAC maintains that such circumstances do not include a change in  
‘market conditions’. Because MPAC characterizes the COVID-19 Impact as a change in  
‘market conditions’, it is MPAC’s position that the current value of each of the Subject  
Properties remains the General Reassessment Value determined by MPAC as of the  
January 1, 2016 valuation day.  
[6]  
Based on their argument described above, the Appellants brought an earlier  
motion requesting that the Board order that their appeals for the 2021 taxation year be  
heard separately from the appeal proceedings for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.  
More specifically, they requested that the Board assign a separate Commencement  
Date and Schedule of Events to hear their appeals for the 2021 taxation year. MPAC  
and the Municipality opposed the request. This prior motion was adjudicated by the  
Board in a decision released on January 24, 2022 (see National Car Rental (Canada)  
Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 5439 (ON  
ARB) ) (“DM 174642”).  
[7]  
In DM 174642, the Hearing Member did not address the main dispute respecting  
the ‘state and condition’ valuation day issue. Although the parties, in their submissions,  
4
DM 177142  
did not rely on Rule 87 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the  
Hearing Member applied this Rule, which provides that the Board may separate  
proceedings heard together at any time when, in its opinion, any of the following criteria  
have been met: the proceedings have become unduly complicated, delayed or  
repetitive, or a party is unduly prejudiced. The Hearing Member expressed the opinion  
that the Appellants had not established any of these criteria, and so the Hearing  
Member denied the request to order that the appeals for the 2021 taxation year be  
heard separately. However, the Hearing Member, also found, at paragraph 20, that “it  
remains open to the Appellants to exercise options pursuant to the Rules to be permitted  
to raise the state and condition issue, including bringing a motion to alter the due dates  
in the Schedule of Events pursuant to Rule 40.”  
[8]  
Rule 40 provides that the Board may grant a request to extend a due date in the  
Schedule of Events, which includes the date for serving a Statement of Issues.  
However, Rule 40 also provides that the Board will only grant such extensions in  
exceptional circumstances.  
[9]  
Consequently, the Appellants have brought the current Motion, under Rule 40, to  
request that the Board amend the Schedule of Events to change the Statement of  
Issues service date and all subsequent dates so that the Appellants may raise the ‘state  
and condition’ issue related to the COVID-19 Impact on the current value of the Subject  
Properties for the 2021 taxation year. They submit that this ‘state and condition’ issue  
was not contemplated as part of their original Statement of Issues served in these  
appeal proceedings, and, because it is a new issue, they have brought this Motion.  
They further maintain that the COVID-19 emergency constitutes exceptional  
circumstances which warrants an extension of the due dates under the Schedule of  
Events for serving their Statement of Issues.  
[10] In response, MPAC and the Municipality jointly oppose the Appellants’ request for  
the following reasons:  
5
DM 177142  
a) They state that the Appellants' Motion is an abuse of process, arguing that  
the Appellants are seeking the same relief sought and denied by the Board  
in DM 174642.  
b) They submit that the Board should dismiss the current Motion for the  
reasons given in paragraph 24 of DM 174642, i.e. that the Appellants failed  
to request the relief sought in a timely manner and there are no exceptional  
circumstances.  
c)  
They submit that the evidence the Appellants seek to adduce is irrelevant  
and, therefore, it would be improper for the Board to consider post  
“Valuation Day” market changes.  
[11] The Board directed that the issues, evidence, and submissions provided in the  
earlier Motion would be considered in this current Motion, because they are relevant to  
the issues raised by the parties in this current Motion. The Board also afforded the  
parties an opportunity to file additional supplementary evidence and submissions.  
MPAC and the Municipality have filed a joint supplementary response to the Appellants’  
supplementary submission.  
[12] The purpose of this Motion Decision is to address this current Motion. As will be  
described in greater detail below, the crux of the dispute raised in this Motion is this:  
Does the legal regime imposed by the Act require that the value of a property must be  
reassessed annually?  
RESULT  
[13] The Board finds that, in this case, the applicable valuation day to determine the  
current value of the Subject Properties for the 2021 taxation year is January 1, 2016.  
Therefore, the Board denies the Appellants’ request that the Board amend the Schedule  
of Events to change the Statement of Issues service date and all subsequent due dates  
in the Schedule of Events.  
6
DM 177142  
ISSUES  
[14] As will be discussed in greater detail below, the Appellants argue that a  
property’s current value may change if its ‘state and condition’ changes, and that a  
property’s ‘state and condition’, however this term is defined, must be determined as of  
the date specified in the Act for the return of the Assessment Roll. As the Assessment  
Roll is returned on an annual basis, the net effect of this argument is that a property’s  
current value must be reassessed on an annual basis in order to determine whether a  
‘change in state and condition’ has occurred which would require a change in the  
General Reassessment Value.  
[15] Accordingly, there are two issues to be addressed in this Motion:  
1. Does the legal regime imposed by the Act require that the current value of a  
property be reassessed annually?  
2. If so, should the Appellants be granted an extension of the due date for  
serving an amended Statement of Issues, to allow them to raise the issue  
that the correct current value of the Subject Properties for the 2021 taxation  
year is different from the correct current value they have claimed for the  
2017 to 2020 taxation years?  
ANALYSIS  
Issue 1: Does the legal regime imposed by the Act require that the current value of  
a property be reassessed annually?  
Submissions  
[16] While the Board has reviewed and considered all of the parties’ submissions, it is  
unnecessary to report all of them in detail for purposes of this Motion Decision. The  
7
DM 177142  
main arguments raised by the parties have been succinctly summarized below. MPAC  
and the Municipality have made joint submissions. For ease of reference, the Board will  
refer to them as MPAC's submissions. Furthermore, for purposes of this Motion  
Decision, the Board assumes that the income of the Subject Properties has been  
reduced in 2020 due to the COVID-19 emergency, but makes no findings in this regard.  
[17] The Appellants rely on s. 36 of the Act which provides that “assessments of land  
under this Act shall be made annually between January 1 and the second Tuesday  
following December 1”. They note that the latest date for returning the assessment for  
the 2021 taxation year is December 15, 2020, and they describe this date as the ‘state  
and condition date’. They argue that the values of the Subject Properties for the 2021  
taxation year should be assessed as of this ‘state and condition date’. They assert that  
the ‘state and condition’ of the Subject Properties on this ‘state and condition date’ is  
different from their ‘state and condition’ for the previous taxation year (this date being  
December 10, 2019).  
[18] As noted above, the Appellants further argue that due to the change in ‘state and  
condition’ of the Subject Properties, the values of the Subject Properties, determined as  
of the December 15, 2020 ‘state and condition date’, should be reduced for the 2021  
taxation year. Accordingly, the Appellants bring this Motion requesting that they be  
permitted to amend their Statement of Issues.  
[19] In support of their position, the Appellants cite several decisions which the Board  
discusses in detail below.  
[20] In response, MPAC and the Municipality assert that any loss or perceived loss in  
the value of lands resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic relates to changes in the  
market. They submit that a change in ‘state and condition’ does not include a reduction  
in property value due to changing market conditions. They maintain that pursuant to  
s. 19.2 of the Act, the values of the Subject Properties are fixed as of the  
8
DM 177142  
January 1, 2016 valuation day, which applies to all taxation years in the assessment  
cycle. They submit, therefore, that market changes which occur after this date cannot  
be considered when determining the current values of the Subject Properties for the  
2021 taxation year. They argue that to hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of a  
fixed legislated valuation day. In support of their position, they also cite several  
decisions which the Board discusses in detail below.  
Findings on Issue 1  
Introduction  
[21] The Board first observes that the issue raised in this Motion raises questions  
regarding the fundamental legislative scheme and purpose of the Act. Therefore, the  
Board will first address the principles of legislative interpretation to be applied, followed  
by a discussion of the purpose of the Act, which, in turn, requires a discussion of the  
main components of property value, i.e. ‘current value’ and ‘valuation day’, and the  
legislative regime under Act.  
[22] In support of their position that the Act requires that current value be reassessed  
annually, the Appellants cite previous Board decisions that primarily rely on  
interpretations of s. 32 and s. 36 of the Act. For this reason, the Board will first provide  
its interpretation of the provisions of the Act, focussing on these two sections in  
particular. In this context, the Board examines the question whether the application of  
‘state and condition’ and ‘market value’ concepts referenced by the parties are  
contemplated by the legislative provisions of the Act. Then, the Board, having  
considered the decisions cited by the parties, will state its conclusion regarding the  
correct legislative interpretation of the Act.  
[23] As there are a significant number of decisions cited by the parties, the Board’s  
analysis of these decisions is provided in a separate section following the Board’s  
9
DM 177142  
statutory interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act.  
[24] Finally, the Board will then apply its findings on the interpretation of the Act to the  
circumstances of this case.  
Interpreting the Act  
[25] In Municipal Property Assessment Corp v BCE Place Ltd, 2009 50862  
(Ont. Div. Ct.), aff'd 2010 ONCA 672, the Divisional Court outlined the correct approach  
to statutory interpretation of taxation statutes. At paragraph 66, the Court stated:  
[66] The following guides are to be used to assist in interpreting a taxing statute:  
(i) The interpretation of tax legislation should follow the ordinary rules  
of interpretation;  
(ii) (a) A legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal  
interpretation depending on the purpose underlying it, and that  
purpose must be identified in light of the context of the statute, its  
objective and the legislative intent: this is the teleological approach;  
(b) The teleological approach will favour the taxpayer or the tax  
department depending solely on the legislative provision in  
question, and not on the existence of predetermined presumptions.  
(iii) Substance should be given precedence over form to the extent that  
this is consistent with the wording and objective of the statute.  
(iv) Only a reasonable doubt, not resolved by the ordinary rules of  
interpretation, will be settled by recourse to the residual  
presumption in favour of the taxpayer. [Emphasis added.]  
As the parties’ submissions refer to the term ‘state and condition’, the Board further  
observes that, when interpreting a section in the Act, the Board must consider only the  
wording of a section as it appears in the Act, not the words or phrases which someone  
uses to describe the section. The Act must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent  
with the legislative intent as expressed in the actual wording of each section of the Act.  
10  
DM 177142  
[26] Rules of statutory interpretation require that the Board’s interpretation must give  
meaning and purpose to every section of the Act. All sections must also be interpreted  
harmoniously in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose of the Act. In other  
words, the Board cannot interpret one section of the Act in a manner that would make  
another section meaningless (i.e. serve no purpose) or redundant (i.e. duplicates the  
effect and purpose of another section), nor can the Board interpret a section in a manner  
which results in one section directly contradicting another section of the Act.  
[27] Furthermore, the Board must give effect to what the Act says, not what the Board  
thinks it should say. In that regard, the Board refers to a decision cited by MPAC made  
by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in respect of the Nova Scotia Assessment Act  
described below as Wandlyn. At page 15 of this decision, the Court stated: “We cannot  
change the Act nor interpret it in a manner that is inconsistent with the legislative intent  
expressed in the words of the relevant sections.”  
[28] Finally, the Board notes that in 1609830 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property  
Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9, 2008 47726 (ON SCDC), the Ontario  
Divisional Court stated, at paragraph 14:  
The individual sections of the Assessment Act are inter-dependant [sic],  
and must be read in context and purpose of entire Act, which is to regulate  
the orderly and fair collection of public taxes based upon an accurate  
assessment roll. [Emphasis added.]  
The Purpose of the Act  
[29] The overarching purpose of the Act is to regulate some of the aspects of  
municipal taxation. Consequently, the Board must consider the legislative regime  
governing taxation, which is set out, not only in the Act itself, but in companion  
legislation - the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Municipal Act”) and the City of  
Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A (“COTA”) (collectively referred to as  
“Municipal Legislation”).  
11  
DM 177142  
[30] Municipal Legislation provides that the amount of the municipal property tax  
levied on a property owner is calculated by applying a specific tax rate, (based on a  
property’s classification) expressed as a percentage of the assessed value of a property.  
Therefore, in overview, the Act establishes the legislative regime to determine: (i) the  
value of the property; (ii) its classification; and (iii) the specific days on which both  
property value and classification are to be determined. The Act also prescribes other  
relevant information, primarily factual in nature, such as property description and  
ownership, which must be included on the Assessment Roll that is provided to the  
municipality.  
[31] From a policy perspective, the Board observes that the Legislature could choose  
from a number of viable options when designing the taxation system. The provisions of  
the Act and Municipal Legislation establish the regime that the Legislature has decided  
to apply in Ontario.  
[32] The Act, through Regulation, regulates some components of property valuation  
methodology for specific types of properties. However, the Act, itself, is not based on  
any specific property valuation methodology. As stated by the Ontario Divisional Court  
in a decision described below as Inmet – Div. Ct., at paragraph 14:  
Neither the new Act nor the old specify the valuation principles by which  
value should be determined. Consequently, there are no legislated  
guidelines setting out specific valuation concepts.  
[33] Therefore, as noted above, the primary purpose of the Act is to prescribe when  
the property value and classification are to be determined for the purpose of calculating  
and levying municipal property taxes. In this context, the Legislature can require that  
one property value, determined as of a single valuation day, must be used to calculate  
taxes to be levied for all the years in an assessment cycle, even though a property’s  
value may vary from year to year within an assessment cycle.  
12  
DM 177142  
[34] Therefore, when interpreting the sections of the Act that govern when a property  
is to be valued for the purpose of calculating municipal property taxes, the Board cannot  
make presumptions based on property valuation theory. It is the wording of the sections  
themselves which must govern this determination.  
Current Value and Valuation Day  
[35] As property values can change over time, an opinion of a property’s value must  
be expressed as its value at a specific point in time. Therefore, in appraisal theory,  
property valuation utilizes two main concepts: (i) the property’s value; and (ii) the  
effective date for determining the value. (See The Appraisal of Real Estate, 3rd  
Canadian Edition (British Columbia: The Appraisal Institute of Canada, 2010) (“The  
Appraisal of Real Estate”), pg. 7.2). As discussed below, the Act implements these two  
components.  
[36] Section 3.6 of Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,  
Appraisal Institute of Canada, January 1, 2020, (“CUSPAP”), defines “Assessed Value”  
as “A value set on real estate and personal property by a government as a basis for  
levying taxes. Assessed value is typically defined by statutes and regulations in each  
respective Province.” Consequently, appraisal theory, itself, recognizes that the  
legislation determines how and when a property is to be valued for purposes of  
municipal taxation.  
Property Value  
[37] In appraisal theory, there are several definitions of the meaning of value,  
depending on the purpose of the valuation. For municipal taxation purposes, s. 1 of the  
Act defines value as current value. It states:  
13  
DM 177142  
current value means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee  
simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing  
seller to a willing buyer;  
For purposes of this Motion Decision a reference to ‘current value’ means “current  
value” as defined in the Act.  
[38] CUSPAP, section 3.20, states that the effective date is “The date at which the  
analyses, opinions and conclusions” apply. The effective date is more commonly  
described as the valuation day. Therefore, when determining value, all applicable  
valuation concepts are applied as of the valuation day. A property’s value cannot be  
determined by choosing different valuation days for individual valuation concepts  
employed to determine a property’s value.  
Effective Date  
[39] In Ontario, the Act applies the appraisal theory concept of the effective date for  
determining a property’s value. The definition of current value underscores that a  
property’s value must be determined as of a single valuation day, this day being the day  
on which a sale of the property notionally occurs. Furthermore, s. 19.2 of the Act  
expressly refers to a valuation day for determining current value.  
[40] However, it is important to observe that the definition of current value does not  
make any reference to the valuation day as of which current value is to be determined.  
The applicable valuation day is prescribed in separate provisions of the Act.  
‘State and Condition’ and ‘Market Changes’  
[41] The Appellants maintain that the current value of a property can be reassessed in  
any of the taxation years in an assessment cycle if there has been a change in the  
property’s ‘state and condition’ following the general reassessment. MPAC agrees in  
14  
DM 177142  
part.  
[42] Before turning to MPAC's position on this issue, it necessary to reiterate that the  
Act requires that the value of property be reassessed once every four years (described  
as the general reassessment) and that this value i.e. the General Reassessment Value,  
will be used to calculate municipal taxes payable for each of the four taxation years in an  
assessment cycle. The Act further specifies the valuation day for the general  
reassessment. The specific legislative provisions are described below.  
[43] The Board observes that the process of determining whether there has been a  
change in a property’s ‘state and condition’ requires an evaluation of the property as of  
the ‘state and condition date’ as compared to its ‘state and condition’ either as of the  
general reassessment valuation day, or, as the Appellants state, as of the previous  
taxation year. If there is such a change, then MPAC would be required to complete a  
valuation analysis to determine the quantum of the current value. However, based on  
Board decisions cited by the parties, described below as General Motors and Claireville,  
the determination of a property’s ‘state and condition’ of the property is based on one  
valuation day (the ‘state and condition’ date), but the determination of the quantum of  
current value is determined as of the general reassessment valuation day prescribed by  
s. 19.2 of the Act.  
[44] There is no provision in the Act to suggest that MPAC's obligation to undertake  
such an analysis only arises when a property owner or some other person suggests that  
there has been a ‘change in state and condition’ or raises this as an issue in an appeal  
proceeding before the Board. Furthermore, the Board notes that a ‘change in state or  
condition’ (however this term is defined) could occur in any taxation year in the  
assessment cycle. Consequently, the assertion that the Act provides that a property’s  
current value can be reassessed if there has been a ‘change in state and condition’, in  
effect, means that the Act permits that a property’s current value can be reassessed on  
an annual basis.  
15  
DM 177142  
[45] Turning to MPAC's position, MPAC only agrees that if there has been a ‘change  
in state and condition’ a property’s current value may be reassessed, but not if the  
change is due only to a change in ‘market conditions’.  
[46] Therefore, in making their submissions, the parties rely on what the Board  
describes as a ‘state and condition’ paradigm, as well as the term ‘market changes’. As  
the dispute among the parties raises questions regarding the meaning and scope of  
these terms, the Board must interpret these terms in the context of the legislative  
provisions of the Act.  
[47] The Board begins its interpretation by observing that the Act does not define or  
use the term ‘state and condition’.  
[48] In making the above statement, the Board acknowledges that the term ‘a change  
to the state or condition of land’ appears in O. Reg. 282/98 (the “General Regulation”), in  
the Part entitled “ADJUSTMENTS UNDER SECTION 19.1 OF THE ACT”. To explain  
further, s. 19.1 of the Act provides for eligible increases (described as “phase ins”) when  
the General Reassessment Value for an assessment cycle is higher than the General  
Reassessment Value for the previous assessment cycle. However, these sections of  
the General Regulation, s. 48, and ss. 48.1 to 48.5, do not regulate the valuation day for  
determining current value.  
[49] Any regulation made by the Minister of Finance, pursuant to s. 2(2)(h) of the Act,  
respecting the valuation day for determining current value, is found in the section of the  
General Regulation entitled: “DIFFERENT VALUATION DAYS FOR THE PURPOSES  
OF SECTION 19.2 OF THE ACT”. The current section is s. 48.6, which does not refer  
to ‘state or condition’.  
[50] The Board further notes that the General Regulation, itself, does not provide a  
definition for ‘state or condition’.  
16  
DM 177142  
[51] The Board has also considered that the Act makes no reference to the ‘state’ of a  
property. A change in a property’s “state” (however this term is defined), may include a  
change in a property’s physical condition, use, zoning, or ‘market conditions’ (however  
this term may be defined), but these are all factors which relate to forming an opinion of  
current value. As such, they are not relevant when determining the applicable valuation  
day on which current value is to be assessed. In other words, the valuation day is  
chosen first, independent of the subsequent determination of the quantum of current  
value.  
[52] Furthermore, the Board emphasizes that the Act does not provide that more than  
one valuation day may be considered when forming an opinion as to current value, i.e.  
some aspects of current value may be determined as of one valuation day, while other  
aspects of the current value are determined as of a different valuation day.  
[53] Regarding ‘market conditions’, this term is not defined or used in the Act or the  
General Regulation. Furthermore, the Board notes that the parties have not provided  
the Board with a definition of ‘change in market conditions’. Instead, the parties rely on  
the analyses in several prior Board decisions which may be loosely described as  
applying a ‘state and condition’ or ‘change in market conditions’ analysis. However, the  
Board has reviewed these decisions below, concluding that the analyses in these  
decisions either are not supported by the legislative provisions of the Act, or rely on  
interpretations of prior Board or Court decisions that are unsubstantiated.  
[54] The Board observes that there is nothing in the legislative provisions of the Act to  
suggest that the legislative regime imposes a different valuation day, depending on  
factors relevant to forming an opinion of current value. In this regard, the Board notes  
that MPAC, in support of its submission, has cited a decision of the Nova Scotia Court of  
Appeal, described below as Wandlyn. However, for reasons described below, the Board  
finds that the findings in Wandlyn were made in the context of a different legislative  
regime, and, therefore, this decision provides no persuasive assistance in interpreting  
the provisions of the Act, as it relates to the application of a ‘state and condition’  
17  
DM 177142  
paradigm.  
[55] In response to MPAC's argument regarding ‘market changes’, the Appellants  
argue that the regulatory restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 emergency  
significantly impacted the ‘state and condition’ of the Subject Properties for the 2021  
taxation year. They describe these as “detrimental conditions”, which, under appraisal  
theory cited by the Appellants, is an “impairment” which must be considered when  
valuing properties using the income approach. Consequently, the Appellants do not  
agree that the change which has occurred in this case is due to a “market trend” or  
“market change”. The Appellants further emphasize that MPAC and the Municipality  
admit that a change in “legal status or use” constitutes a change in ‘state and condition’.  
The Appellants submit that the Subject Properties were impacted by a change in “legal  
status or use”, arguing that the government restrictions essentially stopped international  
travel and limited domestic travel, resulting in Pearson International Airport’s use being  
severely restrained, which, in turn, significantly reduced the car rental income of the  
Subject Properties.  
[56] In response, MPAC asserts that COVID-19 is not a ‘detrimental condition’  
because the COVID-19 Impact does not relate to the characteristics of the property, and  
because the COVID-19 restrictions are only temporary. MPAC, therefore, concludes  
that any loss or perceived loss in the value of the Subject Properties resulting from the  
pandemic relates to changes in the market.  
[57] At this point, the Board must ‘take a step back’ to observe how far the above  
discourse has drifted from the interpretation of the actual provisions of the Act itself.  
Rather than applying the definition of current value and considering the actual provisions  
in the Act which govern the applicable valuation day for determining current value, the  
Board is being asked to draw fine distinctions on what constitutes ‘a change in state and  
condition’, what constitutes a ‘market trend’ or ‘market change’, and to evaluate the  
scope of appraisal concepts such as the impact of “detrimental conditions” as these may  
apply to the determination of the applicable valuation day for determining current value,  
18  
DM 177142  
when none of these terms are used in the Act, and there are no clear definitions for  
these terms. In this regard, the Board re-iterates the statement of the Nova Scotia Court  
of Appeal in Wandlyn: “We cannot change the Act nor interpret it in a manner that is  
inconsistent with the legislative intent expressed in the words of the relevant sections.”  
[58] In reviewing the Board decisions cited by the parties, the terms ‘state and  
condition’ or ‘market change’ are used either in arguments advanced by a party, or by  
the Board, but these decisions provide no clear definition of these terms. ‘State and  
condition’ appears to be a label which loosely refers to sections of the Act which, it is  
argued, do permit changes to the General Reassessment Value subsequent to the  
general reassessment valuation day prescribed in the Act. However, as noted above, it  
is contrary to principles of statutory interpretation to interpret a description of a section or  
sections of the Act, instead of the actual wording of the sections themselves.  
[59] The Board further observes that employing the ‘state and condition’ and ‘market  
change’ paradigms as the applicable legal test does not appear to establish clear criteria  
which the Board can consider and apply, nor, as discussed below, does it appear that it  
would always produce consistent conclusions. In this regard, the Board observes that  
fairness in the administration of the taxation system requires an interpretation of the Act  
that produces consistent results.  
[60] In conclusion, therefore, the Board observes that the ‘state and condition’  
paradigm does not provide any clear guidance in determining the correct applicable  
valuation day for determining current value. Furthermore, the Board re-iterates that,  
while these terms, as well as the concept of ‘detrimental conditions’, may have special  
meaning in the context of property valuation theory, the legislative scheme of the Act is  
not based on any specific property valuation methodology.  
[61] In summary, the above observations demonstrate that the terms ‘change in state  
and condition’ and ‘market change’ provide no clear criteria to determine when a  
19  
DM 177142  
property’s current value can be reassessed after the prescribed valuation day for the  
general reassessment. In this regard, the Board notes that the Appellants have cited a  
decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, described below as Trizec, in which the  
Court, at paragraph 27, observed that: “The words ‘state and condition’ hide more than  
they reveal.”  
[62] For these reasons, the Board does not accept that the ‘state and condition’ and  
‘market change’ paradigms are of any assistance in determining the issue before the  
Board in this Motion. Instead, the Board must look to the provisions of the Act itself.  
Questions to be addressed in this Motion  
[63] In applying the provisions of the Act, clearly, the correct way to address Issue 1 is  
to ask two questions:  
1. Could the COVID-19 Impact affect the current value of each of the Properties,  
as this term is defined in the Act?  
2. Under the Act, what is the correct valuation day for determining the current  
value of each of the Properties for the 2021 taxation year?  
[64] Regarding the first question, the analysis is relatively straight forward. From a  
valuation perspective, it is not disputed that the Subject Properties are income producing  
properties, and, therefore, their value is based, at least in part, on the net income they  
generate. Therefore, assuming that the income of these Subject Properties has been  
reduced due to the COVID-19 Impact, the question is: Would a willing buyer pay less to  
purchase the Subject Properties? As this is an evidentiary matter that must be  
addressed at a hearing, it is unnecessary for the Board to answer this question. The  
issue in this Motion, is whether there is an arguable issue that a sale of these Subject  
Properties would transact at a lower value because of the COVID-19 Impact. The Board  
20  
DM 177142  
finds that the Appellants have outlined a plausible case that it could, and, consequently,  
it is an arguable issue.  
[65] The above analysis disposes of the first question, but not the second. On the  
undisputed facts, the COVID-19 Impact could only affect the current values of the  
Subject Properties in 2020 and subsequent years. Therefore, in advancing the issue  
regarding the current value of the Subject Properties, the Appellants assert that the  
applicable valuation day for determining current value is the date for the return of the  
Assessment Roll for the 2020 taxation year. As noted above, MPAC and the  
Municipality disagree. Therefore, the answer to the second question will be  
determinative of the issue raised in this Motion.  
[66] The Board’s analysis of this question follows below. The Appellants have cited  
decisions in support of their position that the Act allows for an annual reassessment of  
the current value of a property. In overview, the analyses in these decisions rely  
primarily on interpretations of s. 32 and s. 36 of the Act. Obviously, this position directly  
contradicts s. 19.2 of the Act. For this reason, the Board will first consider s. 19.2 and  
s. 36 of the Act, followed by consideration of other provisions of the Act that allow for  
changes to the General Reassessment Value, which includes s. 32 of the Act. The  
Board will then consider whether the requirement to annually assess classification could  
indicate that s. 36 similarly imposes a requirement to annually reassess a property’s  
current value.  
[67] In conducting its legislative analysis, the Board has considered the decisions  
cited by the parties, and, in a separate section in this Motion Decision, provides its  
detailed analysis of these decisions, together with the Board’s conclusions as to whether  
the Board should adopt and apply any of the findings made in these decisions.  
21  
DM 177142  
The Legislative Regime prescribed under s. 19.2 of the Act  
[68] The term ‘general reassessment’ is defined in s. 1(1) of the Act, which states:  
In this Act,  
…
“general reassessment” means the updating of assessments as a  
result of the application of a new valuation day under subsection 19.2  
(1);  
[69] Section 19.2 states:  
Valuation Days  
19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a  
taxation year is determined as follows:  
…
4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020,  
land is valued as of January 1, 2016.  
[70] The Board finds that the wording of s. 19.2 is unequivocal. It stipulates that, for  
purposes for municipal taxation, a property’s value, for each of four consecutive taxation  
years in the assessment cycle, is based on one value, that being the value of the  
property on the specified valuation date (in this case January 1, 2016), i.e. the General  
Reassessment Value. This conclusion is reinforced by the definition of “general  
reassessment”, which, in effect, requires that MPAC must update the assessment of a  
property when s. 19.2 applies a new valuation day. This section expressly provides that  
a property’s value, which has been determined by MPAC in the general reassessment,  
is not reassessed for each of the taxation years in the assessment cycle. A  
reassessment occurs only when there is a general reassessment.  
[71] However, the Act does provide that this value can subsequently be adjusted in  
22  
DM 177142  
certain circumstances, which are discussed below. In this regard, it is important to note  
the distinction that current value may change under two distinct circumstances: (i) where  
the valuation day for determining current value changes, and, consequently the quantum  
of current value must be reassessed; and (ii) where the valuation day for determining  
current value does not change, but the quantum of current value is to be adjusted to  
correct an error or omission in the original assessment of current value, or upon review  
by the Board in an appeal proceeding.  
[72] The above interpretation is also reinforced by the observation that, had the  
Legislature intended that a property’s value be reassessed on an annual basis, then the  
Legislature would have expressly said so. In this regard, the Board notes that,  
regarding a property’s classification, the Legislature has expressly provided that  
classification must be reassessed on an annual basis. Section 19.3 states:  
Classification day  
19.3 The day as of which land shall be classified for a taxation year is  
June 30 of the previous year.  
Therefore, the Legislature clearly considered whether, for purposes of municipal  
taxation, a property’s value should be reassessed annually, and has chosen not to adopt  
this approach.  
[73] The Board also refers to s. 32(4) of the Act which states:  
Change in methodology  
(4) The following rules apply if, as a result of an amendment to this Act or  
the regulations, the method of determining the assessed value of land is  
changed:  
1. The assessment corporation shall make any assessment  
necessary to change the assessed value. …  
23  
DM 177142  
If the Act is interpreted to require an annual reassessment of property value, then any  
change in assessment methodology would be automatically considered when  
conducting the annual reassessment. Consequently, s. 32(4) would not be required.  
Therefore, an interpretation that an annual reassessment is required, would render  
s. 32(4) redundant, which would contravene the principle of statutory interpretation that  
each section of a statute must be interpreted to have its own meaning and purpose.  
[74] In reaching this conclusion, the Board has also considered the definition of the  
term ‘current value’, as “current” could suggest a present valuation day, as opposed to a  
date in the past. The Board observes that, although the term is current value, the  
definition of this term does not include a reference to a valuation day. Therefore, there  
is nothing in the definition of current value to indicate, one way or the other, what the  
valuation day should be. Section 19.2 specifies a valuation day that precedes the date  
for the return of the Assessment Roll prescribed by s. 36 of the Act. Therefore, to the  
extent that the word ‘current’ is understood to mean “the present day”, the Board  
observes that there is nothing current about current value. Consequently, the use of the  
word ‘current’ in current value is somewhat of a misnomer.  
The Legislative Regime prescribed under s. 36(1) of the Act  
[75] Section 36(1) of the Act states:  
Assessment  
36 (1) Except as provided in section 32, 33 or 34, assessments of land  
under this Act shall be made annually at any time between January 1 and  
the second Tuesday following December 1.  
As noted above, the substantive question that the Board must address is  
whether s. 36 of the Act requires an annual reassessment of a property’s current  
value, and, if so, how are s. 19.2 and s. 36 of the Act to be read harmoniously  
with one another and with the overarching purpose of the Act?  
24  
DM 177142  
[76] Some of the Board decisions cited by the Appellants interpret the phrase  
“…assessments of land shall be made annually” to mean that the current value of a  
property must be reassessed on an annual basis. In other words, these decisions  
consider that “assessments of land” means to ‘assess the current value of the property’.  
[77] Therefore, the Board must determine how s. 36(1) is to be interpreted, i.e. what is  
the meaning of the phrase “assessments of land shall be made annually”?  
Interpretation of the term “assessment” in s. 36(1)  
[78] Although the main purpose of the Act is to govern ‘assessments’, the terms  
‘assess’ and ‘assessment’ are not defined in the Act. Therefore, the meaning of these  
terms must be derived by interpretating and comparing the sections of the Act where  
these terms are used.  
[79] In the context of the provisions of the Act, ‘assess’ means the act of forming an  
opinion as to a property’s current value or classification, as well as the act of obtaining  
other relevant factual information which a municipality requires in order to levy taxes.  
An ‘assessment’ is the information obtained from the act of assessing.  
[80] What, then, constitutes an ‘assessment’ under the Act? The answer to this  
question is found in s. 14(1) of the Act which states:  
Assessment Roll Contents  
14 (1) The assessment corporation shall prepare an Assessment Roll for each  
municipality, for each locality and for non-municipal territory and the  
Assessment Roll shall contain the following information as well as the  
information required under subsections (1.1) and (1.2):  
1. The name and surnames, in full, if they can be ascertained, of all  
persons who are liable to assessment in the municipality or in the non-  
municipal territory, as the case may be.  
2. The amount assessable against each person who is liable to  
assessment, opposite the person’s name.  
25  
DM 177142  
3. A description of each property sufficient to identify it.  
4. The number of acres, or other measures showing the extent of the land.  
5. The current value of the land.  
6. The value of the land liable to taxation.  
7. The value of land exempt from taxation.  
8. The classification of the land.  
9. Such other information as may be prescribed by the Minister.  
The Board finds that s. 14, particularly the title “Assessment Roll Contents” [emphasis  
added] clearly indicates that an ‘assessment’ is a compilation of the necessary property  
information which a municipality requires in order to levy municipal property taxes as  
directed in Municipal Legislation.  
[81] The Board’s conclusion in this regard is reinforced by s. 31 of the Act which  
states:  
Notice of assessment  
31 (1) If there is a change in any information described in subsection 14 (1),  
(1.1) or (1.2) in respect of a parcel of land and the change is not reflected in the  
last assessment roll as returned, the assessment corporation shall deliver to  
every person described in subsection 14 (1) who is affected by the change a  
notice, in a form approved by the Minister, showing,  
(a) the person’s assessment and the current value of the parcel of land;  
(a.1) the classification of the parcel of land;  
(b) the person’s school support, if applicable; and  
(c) such other particulars as are directed by the Minister to be shown in the  
notice,  
…
[Emphasis added.]  
[82] This section underscores that the current value of a property is but one piece of  
information, i.e. one thing to be reported on the assessment roll. Therefore, in s. 31 and  
s. 36 there are no directions to undertake the act of forming an opinion as to current  
value.  
26  
DM 177142  
[83] In further support of this conclusion, the Board further notes that, while the term  
“assessment” is not defined in the Act, it is defined in Municipal Legislation. Section 306  
of the Municipal Act (s. 277 of COTA) states: “‘assessment’ means the assessment for  
real property made under the Assessment Act according to the last returned  
Assessment Roll” [emphasis added].  
[84] It is also important to note that the Act does not define the phrase “assessed  
value”. However, where the Act specifically references the value of a property, the Act  
uses the term “assessed value” or current value (see sections 14(1)5, 17.1(1),  
19(2.1.1),19.0.1(1), 32(4) and 40.1). The sections of the General Regulation make  
numerous references to “the assessed value of the land”, but do not provide a definition  
of this term. Therefore, when interpreting the Act or the General Regulation, the term  
“assessment” is not synonymous with “assessed value”. Instead, a property’s  
“assessed value” is the current value to be reported on the Assessment Roll, which is  
but one aspect of the information which comprises an “assessment” of the property as  
prescribed by s. 14 of the Act.  
[85] Turning to the wording of s. 36(1), which states “…assessments of land under  
this Act shall be made annually…”, there is no reference in s. 36 to “assessing” a  
property’s value. The title of s. 36 and the wording of this section expressly refer to the  
Assessment Roll. Therefore, the Board finds that ‘making an assessment of land’  
means that MPAC is to provide a municipality with all the information prescribed under  
s. 14 of the Act. Section 36(1) simply requires that this information is to be reported to a  
municipality on an annual basis (described in the Act as the “return of the Assessment  
Roll”).  
Purpose of the s. 36 requirement for an annual assessment  
[86] In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has also considered the following  
question. If s. 19.2 of the Act provides that the same valuation day for determining a  
27  
DM 177142  
property’s current value is to be applied to each of the taxation years in an assessment  
cycle, then why does s. 36 require that assessments be made annually?  
[87] The Board has previously noted that the purpose of making assessments under  
the Act is to provide a municipality with the information that it requires to levy municipal  
property taxes. Under Municipal Legislation, municipalities are statutorily required to  
prepare an annual budget (see s. 290 of the Municipal Act, cited below). A municipality  
cannot prepare its budget if the municipality cannot calculate the tax revenues to be  
generated by levying municipal property taxes. Therefore, in order to satisfy its statutory  
obligation to prepare an annual budget, a municipality must have the information  
prescribed by s. 14 of the Act. Consequently, this information must be “returned” on the  
Assessment Roll on an annual basis.  
Reporting correct information on the Assessment Roll  
[88] It is axiomatic that the assessment of a property should be based on correct  
information. There can be errors in information reported on the Assessment Roll for any  
given taxation year, errors which may be discovered at any time. Changes to a  
property’s characteristics may also occur over time, such as a change in property  
ownership, which will have the effect of turning what was previously correct information  
into incorrect information. Therefore, it is necessary to specify a specific point in time to  
review whether the information required under s. 14(1) of the Act, which has been  
reported on the Assessment Roll for the previous taxation year, is still correct. Section  
36 expressly establishes that correcting information on the Assessment Roll, i.e.  
updating the information reported for the previous taxation year, is to be done on an  
annual basis, no later than the second Tuesday in the month of December of the year  
preceding the taxation year.  
[89] The date of the return of the Assessment Roll is the critical date. Any changes in  
the information which occur after this date will not be changed on the Assessment Roll  
28  
DM 177142  
for the taxation year (see the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal described below as  
Williams).  
Correct current value to be reported on the Assessment Roll  
[90] It is also important to emphasize that updating any incorrect or outdated  
information on the Assessment Roll as of the date fixed for the return of the Assessment  
Roll, is not the same thing as updating an opinion of a property’s value. If a property’s  
value has been determined in accordance with the requirements of the Act, more  
specifically, on the correct valuation day, then that value is the correct value which must  
be reported on the Assessment Roll.  
[91] In this regard, the Board emphasizes that, of all the classes of information set out  
in s. 14, the Act only requires that a property’s current value and its classification must  
be determined as of a specific valuation day prescribed by the Act. In Jack Walker and  
Jerry Grad, Ontario Property Tax Assessment Handbook, 2nd ed. (Canada Law Book), at  
section 1:90, the authors, in addressing the assessment made under s. 36 of the Act,  
state: “The date of the assessment must be differentiated from the day as of which the  
property is valued and the date at which the property is classified.”  
[92] In further support of this conclusion, the Board observes that, if s. 36 required that  
a property’s value be reassessed annually, there would be no need for the Act to specify  
that assessments must be updated every four years. Therefore, such an interpretation  
would, in effect, render redundant both the definition of general reassessment and  
s. 19.2 of the Act.  
[93] The Board also observes that if s. 36(1) required that MPAC mandatorily annually  
reassess a property value, this would require that MPAC annually reassess the values  
of all five million properties in Ontario. The resource implications of such an  
interpretation are significant, to say the least. If the Legislature intended such a result, it  
29  
DM 177142  
would have provided a clear and express statement to this effect. Such wording is not  
present in s. 36. To the contrary, s. 19.2 makes it clear that the reassessment of  
properties on this scale is to be conducted only once every four years.  
[94] In making the above observation, the Board has considered that the parties’  
submissions focus on conducting a reassessment only if there has been a change in the  
‘state and condition’ of the property which impacts current value. However, the Board  
notes that, in order to do so, MPAC must conduct an assessment to identify whether  
there has been a change in ‘state and condition’, and, if so, form an opinion as to  
whether the current value has changed. This process, itself, constitutes a reassessment  
of current value, even if the final conclusion is that there has been no change in current  
value.  
[95] Finally, the Board observes that, while the Appellants assert that the current  
value for the 2021 taxation year should be reduced through an annual reassessment of  
the Subject Properties, they make no mention of the potential for an increase in current  
value for any of the previous taxation years in the assessment cycle. Property values  
change over time. The value of the Subject Properties can also increase. Assuming s.  
36 did require an annual update of property value, there is nothing in s. 36 to suggest  
that a reassessment of current value would only be required if the property value is  
reduced.  
Conclusion  
[96] In conclusion, the purpose of s. 36 is to require that MPAC annually provide  
municipalities with property assessments, where each property assessment is the  
compilation of the required information prescribed under s. 14 of the Act. In this context,  
there is nothing in the wording of s. 36 to suggest that this section permits a property’s  
assessed value, i.e. current value, to be reassessed on an annual basis, and such an  
interpretation would render the definition of “general reassessment” and s. 19.2 of the  
30  
DM 177142  
Act redundant. The Board finds that its interpretation of the wording of s. 36 does not  
contradict s. 19.2 of the Act and, furthermore, is harmonious with the other sections of  
the Act, as well as the overall legislative scheme and purpose of the Act. It is also  
harmonious with Municipal Legislation.  
Changes to the General Reassessment Value  
[97] Although the Board has found that making an assessment pursuant to s. 36 of  
the Act, in and of itself, does not permit MPAC to change the General Reassessment  
Value of a property for any of the taxation years in an assessment cycle, the question  
remains whether any other provision of the Act may authorize MPAC to do so? The  
answer is that there are some sections of the Act which do provide such authorization,  
which the Board addresses below. The additional question to be answered is whether  
any of these provisions indicate that the current value of a property must be annually  
reassessed.  
The Board’s jurisdiction on appeal  
[98] The Board first turns to its authority to change the assessed value on appeal. In  
an appeal proceeding under s. 40(1) of the Act, the Board has the jurisdiction to  
determine the correct current value of a property for the taxation year under appeal.  
While s. 40 of the Act permits a person to annually file an appeal for each taxation year  
in an assessment cycle, this section makes no reference whatsoever to the applicable  
valuation day on which current value is to be determined. Because s. 40 does not grant  
the Board jurisdiction to select the valuation day, the Board must apply the valuation day  
prescribed in the Act.  
[99] The powers of the Board on appeal are set out in sections 44 and 45 of the Act,  
which state:  
31  
DM 177142  
Assessment may be open upon appeal  
44 (1) Upon an appeal on any ground against an assessment, the  
Assessment Review Board or court, as the case may be, may reopen the  
whole question of the assessment so that omissions from, or errors in the  
Assessment Roll may be corrected, and the amount for which the  
assessment should be made, and the person or persons who should be  
assessed therefor may be placed upon the roll, and if necessary the  
Assessment Roll, even if returned as finally revised, may be opened so  
as to make it correct in accordance with the findings made on appeal.  
Powers and functions of Assessment Review Board  
45 Upon an appeal with respect to an assessment, the Assessment  
Review Board may review the assessment and, for the purpose of the  
review, has all the powers and functions of the assessment corporation in  
making an assessment, determination or decision under this Act, and any  
assessment, determination or decision made on review by the  
Assessment Review Board shall be deemed to be an assessment,  
determination or decision of the assessment corporation and has the  
same force and effect.  
These sections clearly provide that the Board has the same jurisdiction under the Act as  
MPAC to make changes to a property’s General Reassessment Value. Therefore, if  
MPAC does not have the authority under the Act to change a property’s General  
Reassessment Value, then neither does the Board in a s. 40 appeal proceeding (see the  
decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto (City) v Municipal Property  
Assessment Corp, [2013] OJ No 4425, 2013 ONSC 6137, 315 OAC 279, 14 MPLR (5th)  
183, 2013 CarswellOnt 13617 (“Toronto City”) at paragraph 51).  
[100] The above conclusion is subject to one exception. The Board also has the  
jurisdiction, in certain circumstances, to change the General Reassessment Value when  
correcting palpable errors on the Assessment Roll, pursuant to s. 40.1 of the Act.  
However, this section does not provide the Board with the jurisdiction to select the  
valuation day for determining the quantum of the current value. The Board must apply  
the valuation day prescribed by the Act.  
Sections of the Act which authorize changing the General Reassessment Value  
[101] Turning to MPAC's authority to amend the General Reassessment Value, the  
32  
DM 177142  
Board first observes that the Act does not provide MPAC with a general authority to  
change the information to be returned on the annual Assessment Roll at any time that  
MPAC may choose to do so. More importantly, the Act does not provide MPAC with the  
authority to select the valuation day on which to determine a property’s current value or  
classification. Instead, MPAC may only make changes to the General Reassessment  
Value of a property, when authorized by the Act to do so. There are four sections in the  
Act which provide this authority:  
• Section 32 - Correction of errors, etc., in Assessment Roll  
• Section 33 - Change re land omitted from tax roll  
• Section 34 - Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll  
• Section 39.1(9) and (10) – Alteration of the Assessment Roll in a  
Reconsideration of Assessment (where MPAC and the property owner  
agree to a settlement).  
The Board will address each section in turn.  
Section 32 of the Act  
[102] The relevant provisions of s. 32 are:  
Correction of errors, etc., in Assessment Roll  
32 (1) Despite the delivery of any notice provided for under this Act, the  
assessment corporation at any time before the time fixed for the return of  
the Assessment Roll may correct any defect, error, omission or  
misstatement in any assessment and alter the roll accordingly.  
Same, factual error only  
(1.1) Despite the delivery of any notice provided for under this Act, for  
2009 and subsequent taxation years, the assessment corporation may, at  
any time during the taxation year, correct any error in the assessment or  
classification of a property that has resulted from incorrect factual  
information about the property, and not from a change in opinion as to  
current value, and the following rules apply: …  
33  
DM 177142  
[103] The Board begins its analysis by first observing that the clear purpose of s. 32 is  
to correct errors in an assessment. In this context, the error can be in respect of any of  
the information to be reported on the Assessment Roll as required by s. 14 of the Act.  
As previously discussed, a change in a property’s information after return of the  
Assessment Roll can have the effect of turning what was previously correct information  
into incorrect information. However, this does not make the Assessment Roll, as  
returned, incorrect.  
[104] Regarding current value, changes in the information upon which MPAC relied to  
form its opinion of current value as of the general reassessment valuation day, which  
occur after the valuation day, cannot be characterized as an error in the determination of  
the current value as of the that general reassessment valuation day. As stated by the  
Supreme Court of Canada in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Montreal (City),  
[1950] S.C.R. 220 (“Sun Life’) at page 788, when valuing a property for purposes of  
municipal assessment, “there is no room for hypothesis as regards the future of the  
property”.  
[105] MPAC may correct the quantum of the current value where there has been an  
error in the information upon which MPAC relied to form its opinion of current value on  
the general reassessment valuation day. The Board notes that this interpretation has  
been adopted in two prior Board decisions that have been cited by the Appellants  
(described below as Ritchie and Reininghaus). However, the valuation day for  
determining the quantum of current value does not change.  
[106] The above analysis confirms that s. 32 does not prescribe the day on which land  
is to be valued. Therefore, for purposes of this Motion, this confirms that s. 32 does not  
indicate that the current value of a property may be reassessed on an annual basis.  
[107] In summary, where there is no error in the general assessment conducted as of  
the applicable valuation day, and there have been no subsequent reassessments  
34  
DM 177142  
authorized by other sections of the Act, the correct current value to be reported on the  
Assessment Roll for each taxation year in the assessment cycle is the General  
Reassessment Value. Section 32 does not stand as authority that the current value of a  
property may be annually reassessed.  
Section 33 of the Act  
[108] Section 33 states:  
Change re land omitted from tax roll  
33 (1) The following rules apply if land liable to assessment has been in  
whole or in part omitted from the tax roll for the current year or for all or  
part of either or both of the last two preceding years, and no taxes have  
been levied for the assessment omitted:  
1. The assessment corporation shall make any assessment  
necessary to correct the omission.  
…
Change re incorrect exemption from tax  
(3) The following rules apply if land liable to taxation has been entered on  
the tax roll for the current year or for all or part of either or both of the last  
two preceding years as exempt from taxation, and no taxes have been  
levied on that land:  
1. The assessment corporation shall make any assessment  
necessary to correct the omission. . . .  
[109] Section 33 applies where land liable to assessment has been omitted from the  
Assessment Roll, or if land is incorrectly shown to be exempt from taxation. As  
discussed below, s. 34 addresses circumstances where land that formerly qualified for  
exemption under the provisions of the Act, subsequently ceases to qualify.  
[110] Section 33(1) applies in circumstances which may occur after the general  
reassessment, for example, where two property parcels are combined into one, or one  
property is converted to a number of condominium properties. These “new” properties  
are not reflected on the Assessment Roll. As they did not exist at the time of the general  
reassessment, their current value must be newly assessed at the time they are created.  
35  
DM 177142  
Therefore, in this instance, current value is assessed as of a different valuation day  
following the General Reassessment valuation day. However, this does not qualify as  
reassessing the current value of a property that was assessed in the general  
reassessment.  
[111] Regarding s. 33(3), the Board first observes that s. 14(1) requires that MPAC  
must show the current value of a property on the Assessment Roll even though it is  
exempt from taxation. Where the land is incorrectly described on the Assessment Roll  
as exempt, s. 33 does not authorize MPAC to reassess the current value of the property  
at the time the omission is corrected (see Toronto (City) v. Municipal Property  
Assessment Corp., 2013 CarswellOnt 13617, 14 M.P.L.R. (5th) 183) (“Toronto (City)”, a  
decision of the Divisional Court). Therefore, this is an instance where property valued  
as of the General Reassessment Valuation Day prescribed under s. 19.2 is not  
reassessed. The Board observes that, if s. 36 is interpreted as permitting an annual  
reassessment of current value, this would contradict the Court’s finding in Toronto (City).  
[112] In summary, in light of the above observations, it is clear that s. 33 does not stand  
as authority that the current value of a property must be annually reassessed.  
Section 34 of the Act  
[113] As noted above, while s. 32 can provide for an amendment to the General  
Reassessment Value as of the valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act, and s. 33  
allows for a new assessment of current value for land that has been omitted from the  
Assessment Roll, neither of these sections provide for a reassessment of current value  
where changes to the property occur after the general reassessment. Section 34 is an  
important section of the Act, because it expressly addresses the extent to which current  
value can be reassessed after the general reassessment. Therefore, s. 34 prescribes  
the legislative regime which must be applied, not the ‘state and condition’ paradigm  
advocated by the parties.  
36  
DM 177142  
[114] Section 34 of the Act states:  
Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll  
34 (1) If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31  
and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on  
the assessment referred to in the notices,  
(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration,  
enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery,  
equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for  
any purpose;  
(b) land or a portion of land ceases,  
(i)  
to be exempt from taxation,  
(ii)  
to be farm lands the current value of which is determined in  
accordance with subsection 19 (5),  
(iii)  
to be conservation land the current value of which is determined  
under subsection 19 (5.2),  
(iii.1) to be land in the managed forests property class the current value  
of which is determined under subsection 19 (5.2) or (5.2.1),  
(iv) to be land the current value of which is based on current use under  
regulations made under subsection 19 (2), or  
(v)  
to be classified in a subclass of real property; . . .  
the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to  
reflect the change, …  
Supplementary classification  
(2) If, during the taxation year or the period after June 30 in the preceding  
taxation year, a change event, within the meaning of subsection (2.2), occurs  
that would change the class or subclass of real property that a parcel of land or  
a part of such a parcel is in, the assessor may change the classification  
accordingly, and, upon receiving notice of the change, the clerk of the  
municipality or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, shall  
enter it on the tax roll and the tax levied for the taxation year shall be determined  
in accordance with the new classification. …  
“change event”  
(2.2) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2.1),  
“change event” includes,  
(a) a change in the use of all or part of the parcel of land,  
(b) an act or omission that results in all or part of the parcel of land ceasing  
to be in a class or subclass of real property, and  
(c) the opting, by a council of a single or upper tier municipality, to have a  
class or subclass of real property apply or cease to apply within the  
municipality.  
…
[Emphasis added.]  
37  
DM 177142  
[115] In reviewing this section, the Board first observes that s. 34 draws a clear  
distinction between the reassessment of current value and the reassessment of property  
classification. It also clearly confirms that a change in a property’s use is relevant only  
to the reassessment of a property’s classification. In the following discussion, for ease  
of reference, “the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building,  
structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof” is described as an  
‘improvement’.  
[116] Regarding the reassessment of current value, the wording of s. 34(1)(a) is  
unequivocal. Such reassessment can only occur where the change that has occurred is  
an improvement to the property. The additional overlapping qualifiers that the  
improvement: (i) “commences to be used”; and (ii) is “used for any purpose” are both  
significant. The first qualifier indicates that the valuation day on which to reassess  
current value is the day that the improvement commences to be used.  
[117] The second requirement that the improvement be “used for any purpose”,  
requires some additional context. Under the Act, a property’s classification is based on  
a property specific use, e.g. residential, industrial, etc. Therefore, the qualifier “used for  
any purpose” intentionally does not refer to a specific use. This indicates that the term  
“used” in s. 34(1)(a) does not refer to “a change in the use of all or part of the parcel of  
land” which, under s. 34(2) and (2.2), is a “change event” which applies when  
reassessing a property’s classification.  
[118] Of course, the third qualifier is that the current value may only be changed on the  
Assessment Roll, if the improvement results in an increase in current value.  
[119] Turning to s. 34(1)(b), this section addresses a number of circumstances where a  
property or a portion which has a special status, loses that status. For purposes of this  
Motion Decision, it is sufficient to discuss only s. 34(1)(b) (i), i.e. where land ceases to  
be exempt from taxation. The Board first observes that s. 33 addresses the  
38  
DM 177142  
circumstance where the tax exemption status is incorrect, whereas s. 34(1)(b) (i)  
addresses the circumstance where the tax exemption status was correct, but, due to a  
change in circumstances, subsequently ceases. As discussed above in respect of s. 33,  
the question arises whether the current value of the exempt land can be reassessed at  
the time the exemption ceases. In Toronto City, which has been cited above, the  
Divisional Court also addressed s. 34(1)(b) (i), finding that this section also does not  
authorize MPAC to reassess the current value of the property at the time tax exemption  
status ceases.  
[120] Turning now to s. 34(2) of the Act, this section clearly addresses classification,  
and, by defining the term “change event” expressly addresses what constitutes a  
change to property for classification purposes after the general reassessment. Section  
34(2)(a) provides that a “change event” includes a change in a property’s use.  
Therefore, s. 34 expressly provides that a change in a property’s use after the general  
reassessment can only result in a change in a property’s classification, not a change in  
the property’s “current value.”  
[121] In summary, s. 34 only authorizes a reassessment of current value: (i) where land  
is improved such that the current value is increased under s. 34(1)(a); or (ii) in some of  
the specific circumstances described in s. 34(1)(b). In enacting s. 34, the Legislature  
has clearly turned its mind to the circumstances where there has been a change in a  
property’s characteristics following a general reassessment which would require a  
reassessment of current value. Clearly, s. 34 makes no provision for an annual  
reassessment of current value.  
Section 39.1 of the Act  
[122] Section 39.1 provides that, for each taxation year, a property owner may request  
that MPAC reconsider its determination of the current value of a property, and if MPAC  
agrees that the value may be changed, then, pursuant to s. 39(9) and (10), MPAC must  
39  
DM 177142  
advise the municipality of the assessment and the municipality must alter the  
Assessment Roll.  
[123] However, s. 39.1 does not alter the applicable valuation day for determining  
current value. Any settlement between MPAC and the property owner respecting the  
General Reassessment Value must be in respect of the current value of the property on  
the applicable valuation day prescribed by the Act. The fact that a property owner may  
choose the taxation year in which the property owner will make the request, or file an  
appeal with the Board, does not obviate this requirement. Therefore, this section does  
not stand as authority that the current value of a property must be annually reassessed.  
Conclusion  
[124] The above analysis underscores that sections 32, 33, 34, 39.1, 40, and 40.1 of  
the Act provide a comprehensive scheme for making amendments to a property’s  
current value on the Assessment Roll after the general reassessment.  
[125] The Board re-iterates that current value may change under two circumstances: (i)  
where the valuation day for determining current value changes, and, consequently the  
quantum of current value must be reassessed; and (ii) where the valuation day for  
determining current value does not change, but the quantum of current value is to be  
adjusted to correct an error or omission in the original assessment of current value, or  
upon review in a Board appeal proceeding. Therefore, while the quantum of current  
value may change pursuant to sections 32, 33, 34, 39.1, 40, and 40.1 of the Act, the  
selection of the valuation day used to determine the quantum of current value, is only  
prescribed under s. 19.2, s. 33, and s. 34 of the Act.  
[126] When the Act is considered in this context, it is clear that the purpose of s. 36 is  
solely to update the information on the Assessment Roll, which, of course, includes  
more information than just the current value.  
40  
DM 177142  
[127] In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has also considered that that  
s. 36(1) states: “Except as provided in section 32, 33 or 34, assessments of land under  
this Act shall be made annually …” [emphasis added]. As discussed above, sections  
32, 33, and 34 permit MPAC to make changes to the Assessment Roll during a taxation  
year. As Section 36(1) provides that changes to the Assessment Roll are to be made  
once, annually, s. 36(1) simply recognizes that subsequent changes to the Assessment  
Roll may also be made as provided in sections 32, 33, or 34 of the Act.  
[128] Because the Act expressly provides for a comprehensive legislative regime for  
making changes to current value after the general reassessment, this indicates that it is  
unnecessary to impose an interpretative gloss on the wording of the legislation by  
adopting and applying a ‘state and condition’ paradigm.  
[129] In summary, sections 32, 33, 34, 39.1, 40, and 40.1 of the Act provide a  
comprehensive scheme for making amendments to a property’s General Reassessment  
Value on the Assessment Roll. However, only s. 33 and s. 34 provide that current value  
may be determined based on a valuation day which follows the general reassessment  
valuation day prescribe by s. 19.2 of the Act. Section 36 does not allow for an annual  
reassessment of current value, nor is it necessary to impose an interpretative gloss on  
the wording of the legislation by adopting and applying a ‘state and condition’ paradigm.  
[130] The Board recognizes that this result may seem counter-intuitive, particularly in  
cases where an income-generating or manufacturing property faces a financial downturn  
in its operations during the assessment cycle. In such cases, an owner, for different  
valuation purposes, may well decide to redetermine the value of its property as of the  
date of the financial downturn. However, the Board reiterates that the purpose of the  
Act is to play its part in the regulation of municipal taxation. The Legislature can be  
presumed to have understood that such financial downturns may occur, or, for that  
matter, that financial upturns could also occur. In enacting the above-referenced  
provisions, the Legislature, nevertheless, has clearly decided to maintain the General  
Reassessment Value of a property as the value to be used by a municipality when  
41  
DM 177142  
determining the quantum of taxes to be levied for each of the taxation years in the  
assessment cycle, subject to any change in the General Reassessment Value  
authorized by the sections of the Act as described above.  
[131] In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has also considered whether the  
requirement in s. 19.3 of the Act that a property’s classification must be assessed on an  
annual basis, could indicate that s. 36 does require that current value must similarly be  
reassessed on an annual basis. The Board now turns to this question.  
Does the requirement to annually assess a property’s classification suggest that a  
property’s “current value” must similarly be reassessed on an annual basis?  
[132] As noted above, pursuant s. 19.2 and s. 19.3, a property's General  
Reassessment Value applies to multiple years in an assessment cycle, whereas a  
property's classification is assessed annually. As the classification of the Subject  
Properties is not disputed, it is not an issue that the Board must address in this Motion.  
However, because the Board has indicated that s. 19.2 and s. 36 of the Act must be  
interpreted harmoniously with other provisions of the Act, the Board has considered  
whether the requirement to annually assess classification could indicate that s. 36  
similarly imposes a requirement to annually reassess a property’s current value.  
[133] In addressing this question, the Board must consider the legislative regime  
governing taxation, which is set out, not only in the Act itself, but in the companion  
Municipal Legislation as well. In this regard, the Board has considered the following  
provisions of Parts VII and VIII of the Municipal Act:  
Yearly budget, local municipalities  
290 (1) For each year, a local municipality shall, in the year or the  
immediately preceding year, prepare and adopt a budget including  
estimates of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the  
municipality, …  
42  
DM 177142  
Definitions  
306 In this Part,  
“assessment” means the assessment for real property made under the  
Assessment Act according to the last returned Assessment Roll;  
…
“general reassessment” means the updating of assessments in a year in respect  
of which a new valuation date, as specified under subsection 19.2 (1) of the  
Assessment Act, applies;  
Taxes to be levied equally  
307 (1) All taxes shall, unless expressly provided otherwise, be levied  
upon the whole of the assessment for real property or other assessments  
made under the Assessment Act according to the amounts assessed and  
not upon one or more kinds of property or assessment or in different  
proportions.  
General local municipality levies  
312(2) For purposes of raising the general local municipality levy, a local  
municipality shall, each year, pass a by-law levying a separate tax rate,  
as specified in the by-law, on the assessment in each property class in  
the local municipality rateable for local municipality purposes.  
Assessment for general local municipality levy purposes  
312(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the assessment in each  
property class includes any adjustments made under section 32, 33, 34,  
39.1 or 40 of the Assessment Act to the assessments on the assessment  
roll as returned for the taxation year if the adjustments are made on the  
tax roll before,  
(a) the by-law mentioned in subsection (2) is passed for the taxation  
year, if the local municipality is a single-tier municipality; or  
(b) the by-law mentioned in subsection 311 (2) is passed for the  
taxation year, if the local municipality is a lower-tier municipality.  
[134] In overview, the legislative regime imposed by these provisions is as follows. A  
municipality cannot change a property's assessed value or its classification, as returned  
on the Assessment Roll by MPAC. Therefore, in order to raise sufficient tax revenues to  
meet its annual budget requirement, the Municipal Act authorizes a municipality to set  
the tax rates that will apply to each property class. However, the Municipal Act does not  
permit a municipality to set tax rates based on a property's assessed value.  
[135] Property classification is based on a property's use, which can change over time.  
Therefore, because tax rates are based only on property classification, it is important, for  
43  
DM 177142  
purposes of preparing an annual budget, that a property's classification be accurately  
identified on an annual basis.  
[136] The implications of this analysis are two-fold. First, in the context of levying taxes  
to fund a municipality's annual budget, it is beneficial to update the property  
classification on an annual basis, as this directly impacts the amount of taxes a  
municipality may levy. Second, there is nothing in the Municipal Act to suggest that the  
assessed value of properties must similarly be updated on an annual basis.  
[137] It is also important to note that s. 312(3) of the Municipal Act (s. 277 of COTA)  
expressly recognizes that assessments on the Assessment Roll may be adjusted  
pursuant to sections 32, 33, 34, 39.1 or 40 of the Act. It is particularly noteworthy that  
s. 312(3) and s. 277 do not include a reference to s. 36 of the Act. If the Legislature had  
intended that s. 36 of the Act provides for an annual reassessment of current value, then  
s. 213(3) and s. 277 would have included s. 36 in the list of sections that make an  
adjustment to the assessment on the Assessment Roll.  
[138] The Board, therefore, concludes that the requirement to annually assess  
classification does not indicate that s. 36 similarly imposes a requirement to annually  
reassess a property’s current value.  
Analysis of decisions cited by the Appellant  
[139] The Board has reviewed the Board and Court decisions on which the Appellants  
rely in support of their contention that a property’s current value must be assessed  
annually. The Board has also reviewed the relevant cases cited in these decisions.  
Upon a thorough review of these decisions, the Board finds that none of them provide a  
statutory interpretation of the provisions of the Act which supports this contention. The  
Board will address each decision in turn.  
44  
DM 177142  
Williams v. Regimbal, 1935 CarswellOnt 13, [1935] 2 D.L.R. 283; [1935] O.R. 199  
(Ont. C.A.), a decision of the Ontario Court of appeal issued February 28, 1935  
(“Williams”)  
[140] The Board begins with the Williams decision cited earlier in this Decision, in which  
the Court addressed the circumstance where the ownership of the property changed  
after the date for the return of the Assessment Roll. At paragraph 8, the Court of Appeal  
stated:  
The date of the return of the Assessment Roll is the critical date. If at that  
date property has changed hands, so that the roll does not correctly state the  
ownership, this may properly be the subject either of an appeal or of a  
rectification of the roll under sec. 56, but where a change takes place in the  
ownership of the property after the date when the roll was returned, this could  
not be said to be an error in the roll. There can be no appeal, nor does the  
section relating to the correction of errors apply.  
…
There must be some finality to the assessment roll and the date it is fixed  
when it is certified and returned to the clerk is the date that governs. Any  
changes that take place after that date in the ownership of the property must be  
ignored in the assessment for that year at least. If every change of ownership  
had to be varied by change of the assessment roll, there would be no finality.  
Therefore, this decision only stands as authority for the finding that the point in time for  
determining the accuracy of the information to be reported on the Assessment Roll, is  
the date for the return of the Assessment Roll.  
[141] Consequently, any changes in a property’s information that require a correction  
be made to the Assessment Roll, must have occurred on or before the date of the return  
of the Assessment Roll. For ease of reference, the Board refers to this finding as the  
“Williams Principle”. However, this decision does not state, or even suggest, that a  
property’s current value must be reassessed annually. In this regard, the Board notes  
that the Court did not make reference to a section equivalent to s. 19.2 of the Act.  
Furthermore, the issue of the current value of the property was not before the Court.  
The change in Williams, was a change of ownership.  
45  
DM 177142  
[142] The Board observes that Williams was cited with approval in Scollard  
Developments Inc. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 9 (1992), 34  
ACWS (3d) 378, a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) issued on  
June 18, 1992 (“Scollard”). Under the provisions of the Assessment Act in force at the  
time, the value of residential units as rental units versus condominium units depended  
on whether they were owner or renter occupied. The Court was not asked to determine  
current value, nor did it refer to a section equivalent to s. 19.2 of the Act. The Court, in  
applying Williams ruled that the date for making the determination of the nature of the  
occupancy for the taxation year was the date of the return of the Assessment Roll,  
stating than any subsequent change in occupancy status after that date, could not be  
used to impugn the correctness of the assessment.  
General Motors of Canada Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation,  
Region No. 27, 2017 3664 (ON ARB), issued on January 27, 2017 (“General  
Motors”)  
[143] This is a Board decision that addresses the determination of the correct current  
value of an automotive assembly plant, when the plant was operating in the 2009 and  
2010 taxation years, and then ceased operations in the subsequent years, finally being  
sold in 2014. In overview, the Hearing Panel found one current value of the property for  
the 2009 and 2010 taxation years, and a different current value for the remaining two  
years in the assessment cycle. The Hearing Panel approached its decision by annually  
assessing the value of the property for each taxation year in the assessment cycle. The  
Panel’s rationale for doing so is set out in the following paragraphs of this decision:  
[5] Section 44(3)(a) of the Act requires us to “determine the current value of the  
land.” Current value is defined in section 1 as “the amount of money the fee  
simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller  
to a willing buyer.” That is, for each taxation year, we must determine what the  
Plant would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the valuation day set  
pursuant to s. 19.2 of the Act, which is January 1, 2008 for the 2009, 2010, 2011  
and 2012 taxation years and January 1, 2012 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation  
years. [Emphasis added.]  
. . .  
46  
DM 177142  
State and Condition  
[11] Property is assessed each year as it was when the tax roll was returned to  
the municipality. The roll must be returned by the second Tuesday following  
December 1 of the previous year, so the state of the property on that date is  
determinative of the assessment. For the taxation years before us, the state and  
condition date is December 9, 2008 for the 2009 taxation year, December 15,  
2009 for the 2010 taxation year, December 14, 2010 for the 2011 taxation year,  
December 13, 2011 for the 2012 taxation year, December 11, 2012 for the 2013  
taxation year, and December 10, 2013 for the 2014 taxation year. The  
assessment for each year is determined by the status of the Plant on the state  
and condition date, see Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc. v. Municipal  
Property Assessment Corp, Region 32 [2015 CarswellOnt 10218 (Ont. Assess.  
Review Bd.)], 2015 38435, ("Resolute") at para 24.  
[12] The state and condition date rule in Ontario flows from the decision of the  
Ontario Court of Appeal in Williams v. Regimbal, [1935] O.R. 199 (Ont. C.A.),  
which directed that changes that take place after the day the roll is returned  
should be ignored. The Divisional Court of Ontario confirmed that rule in  
Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Inmet Mining Corp. (2002), 163 O.A.C.  
59, [2002] O.J. No. 3540 (Ont. Div. Ct.) ["Inmet"]. In Inmet, the property before  
the Board had suspended its operations on the roll return date, and closed just  
over two months later. The Board held that the closure could not be considered  
for the year in which operations were suspended, which was confirmed by the  
Divisional Court. The Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") applied the rule in Gilbey  
Canada Inc. v. Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 12  
(1996), 33 O.M.B.R. 323 (O.M.B.) ["Gilbey"] where the factory was announced  
to be closing in August 1990 and closed permanently on December 20, 1990,  
two days after the roll had closed. The OMB found that because it operated on  
the roll return date, it should be assessed as operating for the subsequent  
taxation year.  
[13] GM argues that the state and condition date only applies to legal or physical  
changes to the Plant and that there were none here. We disagree. State and  
condition is not only concerned with the physical and legal status of a property.  
The jurisprudence is clear that use is also an issue to be considered fixed at the  
roll return date. That is apparent from the findings in Inmet and Gilbey, where  
the legal and physical status of the properties did not change, only their use  
changed, but the valuation implications were significant.  
. . .  
Highest and Best Use  
[15] The value of the Plant is impacted by how the market would perceive its  
most profitable use at any given time. This is the valuation principle known as  
highest and best use. A property is to be valued at what the market would view  
as the most productive use of the land because that is how it is most likely to  
transact. For assessment purposes the highest and best use of a property is  
tied to its state and condition. A highest and best use assessment is appropriate  
for each taxation year because the highest and best use of a property will  
change over time, see Toronto Airways Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment  
Corp., Region No. 14 [2014] O.A.R.B.D. No. 500, (WR 126007) (“Toronto  
Airways”) at para. 37. [Emphasis added.]  
47  
DM 177142  
[144] Regarding paragraph 5, the Hearing Panel stated that the Board must determine  
the current value of the property for each taxation year, albeit on the valuation date  
prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act. This appears to misstate the requirement set out in  
s. 19.2. The Act does not require that MPAC or the Board determine a property’s  
current value for each taxation year in the assessment cycle, as the current value  
determined in the General Reassessment Value is the current value to be reported on  
the Assessment Roll for each of the four taxation years in the assessment cycle (absent  
any changes made pursuant to sections 32, 33, or 34 of the Act).  
[145] The Hearing Panel found that the current value of the automobile plant for the  
first two taxation years of the assessment cycle, 2009 and 2010, in which the plant  
operated, was correctly determined by applying the Cost appraisal approach valued as  
of the general reassessment valuation day. For the remaining two taxation years, 2011  
and 2012, the Hearing Panel valued the plant on the basis that it was not operating, and  
determined that the quantum of the current value should be based on the sale price  
when then plant was sold in 2014. However, based on the evidence adduced, the  
Hearing Panel found that the sale price in 2014 reflected the sale price as of the general  
reassessment day. Consequently, the Hearing Panel assessed the plant as of two  
valuation days, the ‘state and condition’ day (i.e. the taxation year) and the general  
reassessment day. The Board discusses the application of two valuation days under  
the Claireville and Claireville – Div. Ct. decisions cited below.  
[146] The Board notes that the Hearing Panel’s observations made in paragraph 12,  
only confirm the Williams Principle. In paragraph 13, the Hearing Panel shifts from the  
application of the Williams Principle to a discussion of ‘state and condition’, finding that  
that a change in a property’s use requires that the value of the property must be  
reassessed. Then, at paragraph 15, the Hearing Panel states a conclusion that a  
Highest and Best Use assessment is “appropriate” because a property’s Highest and  
Best Use changes over time. In this regard, the Board notes that Highest and Best Use  
is an appraisal concept applied when determining the quantum of current value. As  
discussed earlier in this Motion Decision, the valuation day is chosen first, independent  
48  
DM 177142  
of the subsequent determination of the quantum of current value, i.e. independent of  
appraisal concepts considered when determining the quantum of current value.  
[147] The Board, below, has reviewed the cases cited as authority by the Hearing  
Panel in support of the above finding, concluding that none of these cases provides any  
probative analysis to suggest that a property’s current value must be reassessed  
annually. The Board also notes that the Hearing Panel’s analysis does not address the  
contradiction between their conclusion and the clear wording of s. 19.2 of the Act.  
Therefore, the Board finds that this decision is of no assistance in determining the issue  
before the Board in this Motion.  
Resolute FP Canada Inc. v Thunder Bay (City), 2015 38435 (ON ARB) issued  
on July 3, 2015 ("Resolute")  
[148] This decision addressed the current value of a paper mill for the 2009 to 2012  
taxation years, where the applicable general reassessment valuation day was January  
1, 2008. The decision indicates that the financial success of the mill had declined in  
prior years. The decision did not provide a description of the circumstances of the paper  
mill as they existed on the January 1, 2008 valuation day. It does describe that the  
paper mill was not operating at a profit when, in 2009, two of its paper producing  
machines were shut down, and the mill went into creditor protection under the  
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c. C-36. This action led to the  
development of a reconfiguration plan for operations at the mill that was implemented in  
the 2011 and 2012 taxation years, which the Hearing Panel, at paragraph 29, found  
was:  
…very likely the highest utility of the installed capacity at the mill. We accept  
that it was a discoverable configuration throughout the assessment period and  
would have been considered by many theoretical buyers. Thus, the utility that a  
purchaser would have paid no more to achieve was the utility achieved through  
the plan that saved the mill.  
[149] Both the paper mill owner and MPAC argued that the current value of the  
49  
DM 177142  
property for all taxation years should be determined based on the reconfiguration plan,  
arguing that condition of the paper mill in the 2009 and 2010 should be ignored. The  
Municipality argued that the current value of the paper mill for each taxation year should  
be determined based on the actual operations undertaken in the taxation year. The  
Hearing Panel accepted MPAC's ultimate position, but not on the basis that condition of  
the paper mill for 2009 and 2010 should be ignored. Instead, the panel found that, in the  
circumstances of this case, the reconfiguration plan represented the paper mill’s Highest  
and Best Use for all four taxation years.  
[150] In reviewing this decision, the Board notes that, although the Hearing Panel  
acknowledged that the Act provided that the valuation day for determining current value  
for these taxation years was January 1, 2008, the Hearing Panel made no further  
reference to this valuation day. Instead, at paragraphs 24, 25 and 27 the Hearing Panel  
stated:  
State and Condition  
[24] Section 36.(1) of the Act, and its predecessor, have been interpreted to  
apply in a strict manner. In Williams v. Regimbal, [1935] O.R. 199 the Court of  
Appeal fixed the date of return of the Assessment Roll, stating “any changes  
that take place after that date in the ownership of the property must be ignored  
in the assessment for that year at least.” In Gilbey Canada Inc. v. Regional  
Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 12 (1996), 33 O.M.B.R. 323 (“Gilbey”)  
the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) applied Williams v. Regimbal in holding  
that “the assessment of real property is determined by the situation and facts as  
they were at the time of the return of the roll.” In that case the property was a  
distillery that was announced to be closing in August 1990. It closed on  
December 20, 1990 and the roll had closed on December 18, 1990. The OMB  
found that because the distillery had operated on the roll return date, it should  
be assessed as a distillery for the subsequent taxation year. Similarly, in Inmet  
Mining Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp, Region No. 32, [2001]  
O.A.R.B.D. No. 1006, a differently constituted panel of this Board held that the  
roll return date is “when a ‘snapshot’ of use and occupation may be taken for  
use in the determination of an assessment”. That case also dealt with a closure  
shortly after the condition date. The Board’s decision in Inmet was upheld by the  
Divisional Court, (2002) 163 O.A.C. 59.  
[25] This jurisprudence makes it clear that the use and ownership of a property  
are fixed as they are at the date the tax roll is returned for the next taxation year.  
The use of the mill was always as a pulp and paper mill and the ownership of  
the mill was consistent throughout the assessment period. However, the  
evidence before us is that the configuration of the mill has an impact on value  
and thus the snapshot must not only be of the use, which did not change, but of  
50  
DM 177142  
the configuration of that use. That is, we must determine the general operation  
of the mill on each condition date.  
[27] Notwithstanding this evidence, Resolute and MPAC urge us to treat the mill  
for all four years as though it was configured as it was for the 2011 and 2012  
condition dates. That is, they urge us to ignore the condition of the mill on the  
2009 and 2010 condition dates. They state that the plan that saved the mill is  
the highest and best use of the mill and should therefore be the configuration on  
which it is valued. We cannot accept this position. “Highest and best use” is an  
assessment valuation principle requiring a great deal of market evidence to  
prove. State and condition, on the other hand, is a factual finding. The highest  
and best use of a property does not necessarily have any bearing on its state  
and condition. …  
[151] In addressing this analysis, the Board first notes that, as in General Motors, the  
observations made in paragraph 24, only confirm the Williams Principle. However, in  
paragraph 25, the Hearing Panel then shifts from the application of the Williams  
Principle.  
[152] Regarding the statement in paragraph 25 that “use” is fixed as of the date for the  
return of the Assessment Roll, the Board first notes that, in Williams, the Court made no  
reference to the “use” of a property. As for the return of the Assessment Roll, the Board  
observes that s. 14 of the Act, which prescribes the information to be reported on the  
Assessment Roll, does not expressly refer to “use”. The concept of “use” is a valuation  
concept considered when forming an opinion as to current value. The current value to  
be reported on the Assessment Roll is the value determined as of the applicable  
valuation day prescribed in the Act. The Act does not provide that if the use of the  
property changes, the valuation day for determining current value must change.  
Therefore, the Hearing Panel’s findings simply assume that the current value must be  
reassessed if there is a change in use following the general reassessment valuation  
day. The Hearing Panel provides no interpretative analysis to support this conclusion.  
Furthermore, the Board notes that the Hearing Panel did not provide any analysis to  
address the fact that their finding directly contradicts the express provisions of s. 19.2 of  
the Act.  
[153] In reaching its conclusion that it cannot rely on the analysis in Resolute, the  
51  
DM 177142  
Board has considered the following. The action of forming an opinion as to current  
value as of a specific valuation day may occur after the valuation day. Therefore, as an  
evidentiary matter, evidence of a property’s post-valuation day circumstances can be  
available, which may be relevant to the determination of a property’s current value on  
the general reassessment valuation day. For example, where property is being valued  
using a comparable sales analysis, sales of properties both before and after the day can  
be relevant, but appraisal theory requires that the sale values be time-adjusted to the  
valuation day. However, it is clear that the applicable valuation day remains the  
valuation day prescribed by the Act.  
[154] Therefore, in Resolute, given the apparent volatility of the paper mill’s income and  
mill operations, which presumably existed as of the January 1, 2008 general  
reassessment valuation day, it may well have been appropriate to consider that the  
reconfiguration plan reflected the paper mill’s Highest and Best Use as of the general  
reassessment valuation day. However, in this decision, the Hearing Panel clearly did  
not make a determination of Highest and Best Use as of this applicable valuation day.  
[155] In summary, the analysis in this decision does not provide any probative  
interpretative analysis to support the conclusion that a property’s current value can be  
reassessed on an annual basis. Therefore, the Board concludes that this decision is of  
no assistance in determining the issue before the Board in this Motion.  
Municipal Property Assessment Corp v Inmet Mining Corp, [2002] OJ No 3540, 163  
OAC 59, 116 ACWS (3d) 485, 44 OMBR 271, (Ont. Div. Ct.), issued on July 31, 2002  
("Inmet – Div. Ct.")  
[156] In order to understand this decision, it is necessary to first review the original  
Board decision, Inmet Mining Corp v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No.  
32, [2001] O.A.R.B.D. No. 1006, issued on October 16, 2001 ("Inmet").  
[157] In Inmet, the main issue in dispute was the quantum of allowances for  
52  
DM 177142  
obsolescence, which is an assessment methodology concept that can be considered  
when forming an opinion of current value. At paragraph 19, the Hearing Member noted:  
“It is clear to this Member that recent amendments to the Act have changed significantly  
the manner in which, under normal circumstances, assessment values are to be  
determined by OPAC and this Board.” In this decision, the Hearing Member found that  
different allowances applied to each of the three taxation years under appeal, resulting  
in a different assessed value for each taxation year. The Hearing Member first cited the  
Williams Principle, and then, at paragraphs 24 and 28, states:  
24 And by the provisions of section 19.2 that [current value] is the value as of  
June 30, 1996 for the three years under appeal.  
28 Thus, under normal circumstances, with the removal of the provisions  
relating to equity in the amended Act, and a far greater emphasis on current  
value, the Board concludes that it was the intention of the Legislature, in  
passing these amendments, that the provisions of subsection 19(1)  
[assessment of land shall be based on its current value] are dominant. The job  
of OPAC and this Board is to seek correct current value wherever possible.  
Current value is that which the property, unencumbered, is likely to attract on  
the open market.  
[158] In reviewing this decision, the Board observes that, while the Hearing Member  
acknowledged the requirements of s. 19.2, he did not apply this section. While the  
Board recognizes that it is important to determine the correct current value, that is not  
the issue before the Board in this Motion.  
[159] As the Board has previously stated, if MPAC does not have the authority under  
the Act to change a property’s value, then neither does the Board. Therefore, to the  
extent that paragraph 28 suggests that the express requirements set out in s. 19.2 of the  
Act can be disregarded, the Board respectfully disagrees. It is important to note that the  
jurisdiction of the Board, as an administrative tribunal, is restricted to the authority  
granted to it under its enabling legislation. Under this legislation, the Board does not  
have jurisdiction to make a policy decision to apply a legislative scheme that is not  
prescribed by the Act. Furthermore, the Board notes that, in paragraph 28, the Hearing  
Member does not provide any statutory interpretation to explain how an emphasis on  
53  
DM 177142  
determining the correct current value can displace the express requirement in s. 19.2 of  
the Act which prescribes the valuation day to be applied. The Board also reiterates its  
earlier observation that the definition of ‘current value’ makes no reference to a valuation  
day.  
[160] As noted above, Inmet Mining Corp appealed the Board’s Decision, alleging five  
errors of law, none of which relate to the issue of the application of s. 19.2 of the Act.  
Consequently, the issue of the applicable valuation day was not before the Divisional  
Court. Therefore, neither the decision of the Hearing Panel nor the Court are of  
assistance in determining the issue before the Board in this Motion.  
Gilbey Canada Inc. v. Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 12,  
1996 CarswellOnt 5840, 33 O.M.B.R. 323, issued on January 18, 1996 (“Gilbey”)  
[161] This decision was cited in General Motors. Under applicable legislation in force  
in 1996, an appeal of a Board decision was to the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”). In  
this OMB appeal decision, there is no reference to the specific legislative regime under  
the Assessment Act in force at that time. This decision clearly applies the Williams  
Principle. However, the Board notes that General Motors only cites Gilbey as authority  
for applying the Williams Principle. Gilbey was not cited as authority for anything else.  
For these reasons, the Board finds this decision of no assistance in determining the  
issue before the Board in this Motion Hearing.  
Toronto Airways Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 14 2014  
CarswellOnt 15057, a decision of the Board issued on October 28, 2014 (“Toronto  
Airways”)  
[162] This decision was cited in General Motors. It addressed an appeal by the owner  
for the 2012 taxation year respecting airport lands. The valuation day specified in  
s. 19.2 is January 1, 2008. For a number of years, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority  
provided an operating subsidy to Buttonville Airport. In 2008 the Appellants were  
informed that the subsidy would end in 2009. Consequently, a partial interest in one  
54  
DM 177142  
parcel of the land, described as the Airport Parcel, was sold in late 2010 for  
redevelopment purposes. When MPAC became aware of this transaction, it increased  
the assessed value of the Airport Parcel by approximately 100%. MPAC maintained  
that that this value change was based on MPAC’s opinion that the Highest and Best Use  
of the land had changed from an airport to urban development land.  
[163] The owner asserted that the correct current value was the General  
Reassessment Value, i.e. the current value determined as of the valuation day specified  
in s. 19.2. The owner argued that MPAC was prohibited from changing this value  
without a physical or legal change to the property. In response, MPAC argued that it is  
permitted to change its opinion of value each year when the Assessment Roll is  
returned. MPAC maintained that “the exclusion of ‘a change in opinion as to current  
value’ from changes after close of the roll in s. 32(1.1) implies that changes in opinion as  
to current value is included in “defect, error, omission or misstatement” set out in  
s. 32(1)”.  
[164] At paragraph 11, the Hearing Panel found “…MPAC is not prohibited from  
changing its opinion of value when it annually returns an assessment.” The Hearing  
Panel began its analysis in support of this conclusion, citing the relevant legislation as  
s. 19.2, s. 36(1), and sections 32-34.  
[165] At paragraphs 18 and 19, the Hearing Panel states:  
18 Valuation days are set out in s. 19.2.(1)2 of the Act, which states that "for the  
period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as  
of January 1, 2008." This section creates a four year cycle between valuation  
days.  
[19] Despite this four-year valuation base year, s. 36.(1) of the Act requires  
assessments to be made annually and s. 36.(2) requires that the assessment  
roll be returned to the municipality “not later than the second Tuesday following  
December 1 in the year in which the assessment is made.” [Emphasis added.]  
[166] The Board first notes that the Hearing Panel’s finding in paragraph 19 is only a  
55  
DM 177142  
statement of the Hearing Panel’s conclusion. However, the Hearing Panel  
acknowledges that its interpretation of s. 36 is in spite of s. 19.2, not consistent with it.  
[167] The Hearing Panel’s analysis in support of its interpretation is found at paragraph  
25, which states:  
25 This Board has considered the proper interpretation of s. 32, and the legality  
of mid-cycle assessment changes, in two decisions: Reininghaus v. Municipal  
Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15 (2013), 77 O.M.B.R. 485 (Ont.  
Assess.Review Bd.) ("Reininghaus") and Ritchie v. Municipal Property  
Assessment Corp., Region No. 15 (2013), 76 O.M.B.R. 125(Ont. Assess.  
Review Bd.) [“Ritchie”]. In both instances the Board concluded that the Act  
permits a new assessment each taxation year and that s. 32 cannot be read in a  
limited manner. In Reininghaus Member Wyger held, at para. 19: "It makes  
eminent sense to allow MPAC to correct an assessment for practically any  
reason prior to the roll being fixed." We agree. Section 32 must be read as a  
whole and by clarifying in s. 32.(1.1) that "a change in opinion as to current  
value" was not a change permitted after the return of the roll, the legislature has  
made its intention clear that an opinion of value is a valid correction pursuant to  
s. 32(1). This is further supported by the requirement in s. 36.(1) that an  
assessment be returned each year. Assessing property requires an assessor to  
form an opinion on the value of that property. Thus, in requiring an assessment  
to be returned each year, the legislature left it open to MPAC to change its  
opinion of value each taxation year. [Emphasis added.]  
[168] In reviewing this analysis, the Board first observes that the Hearing Panel  
correctly observed that a change in opinion of value can be corrected under s. 32 (1).  
However, the Hearing Panel does not address the issue of the correct valuation day for  
determining whether there is an error that must be corrected. In referencing the “legality  
of mid-cycle assessment changes”, the Hearing Panel appears to have assumed that  
this refers to a mid-cycle valuation day for determining current value. However, s. 32(1)  
and s. 32(1.1) only refer to the taxation years in which an error in an “assessment” can  
be corrected. As discussed earlier in this Motion Decision, s. 32(1) does not address  
the valuation day for determining current value, nor, as the Board has found, does it  
expressly or implicitly indicate that a change in circumstances subsequent to the  
applicable valuation day can constitute an error in the assessment of value as of the  
applicable valuation day.  
56  
DM 177142  
[169] The Hearing Panel relies on Reininghaus and Ritchie as authority for its finding  
that “the Act permits a new assessment each taxation year”. However, the Board,  
below, has reviewed each of these decisions, finding that neither of them states this  
conclusion. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Hearing Panel provided no legislative  
interpretation to account for the fact their conclusion directly contradicts the requirement  
set out in s. 19.2 that land must be valued as of the applicable valuation day, nor did the  
Hearing Panel consider that their interpretation of s. 32(1) or s. 36 renders s. 19.2  
redundant.  
[170] Regarding the Hearing Panel’s observation that s. 36(1) requires “an assessor” to  
“form an opinion on the value of the property”, the Board notes that the Hearing Panel  
has provided no legislative interpretation to support this conclusion. The Board has  
already found that s. 36 requires that MPAC report the correct information to be reported  
on the Assessment Roll as of the date prescribed for the return of the roll.  
[171] For these reasons, the Board concludes that it cannot rely on the analysis in  
Toronto Airways when determining the issue before the Board in this Motion.  
Ritchie v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, [2013] OARBD No  
66, 76 OMBR 125, 2013 CarswellOnt 3879, a decision of the Board issued on March  
28, 2013 (“Ritchie”)  
[172] In Ritchie, the owner filed an appeal for the 2009 taxation year. As this appeal  
was not resolved prior to 2012, deemed appeals were created for the 2010 to 2012  
taxation years. The parties negotiated a settlement of current value of 2009 to 2011.  
Subsequent to this settlement, MPAC discovered that, when it conducted the general  
reassessment (the s. 19.2 valuation day being January 1, 2008), its records, at that time,  
did not include reference to two additions made to the building on the property in 2003  
and 2004. MPAC determined that this error impacted its opinion of the correct current  
value on the valuation day, and consequently issued a correction of the General  
Reassessment Value for the 2012 taxation year pursuant to s .32(1) of the Act. The  
57  
DM 177142  
owner’ representative argued that MPAC had no authority to apply s. 32(1) of the Act to  
remedy an error in factual information. The Hearing Member noted that it had some  
difficulty in understanding the owner’s argument, ultimately finding that the ability to  
make corrections under s. 32(1) and s. 32(1.1) is consistent with the scheme of the Act.  
[173] This decision makes no reference to s. 19.2, but it is clear, as stated above, that  
the errors being corrected were in respect of the property’s description as it existed on  
the valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2. The only reference in Ritchie regarding whether  
the Act permits a new assessment each taxation year, is found in paragraph 21, which  
only reports MPAC's argument “… that every annual assessment is a separate and  
independent process or transaction which must be carried out in accordance with the  
facts as they exist at the time of making the assessment.” The Board notes that the  
Hearing Panel in Ritchie did not adopt this argument. Furthermore, this argument must  
not be taken out of context. The argument was made in response to the owner’s  
argument that MPAC did not have authority under s. 32(1) to correct an error.  
[174] For these reasons, the Board concludes that this decision does not stand as  
authority for the proposition that the Act provides for an annual reassessment of current  
value.  
Reininghaus v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15 2013  
CarswellOnt 3528 [2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 65, 77 O.M.B.R. 485 (“Reininghaus”)  
[175] In Reininghaus, MPAC issued a correction of the current value for the 2012  
taxation year, pursuant to s. 32 of the Act, because, in conducting an inspection of the  
subject property, MPAC discovered errors in information on which MPAC had relied  
when MPAC conducted its general reassessment. The owner’s representative (who  
was the same person who acted as the owner’s representative in Ritchie), argued that  
MPAC did not have the authority to change the current value under s. 32(1). At  
paragraph 18, MPAC argued that it had full authority under s. 32(1) to “correct any  
defect, error, omission or misstatement in any assessment”, and that this broad power  
58  
DM 177142  
was available to MPAC up to the roll close each year. The Hearing Panel accepted this  
argument stating at paragraph 19:  
. . . I find that the legislative intent of the addition of s. 32(1.1) was to set  
different conditions for corrections pre-roll return and post- roll return. It makes  
eminent sense to allow MPAC to correct an assessment for practically any  
reason prior to the roll being fixed. It makes equal sense that during the taxation  
year, such corrections as an increase in value be restricted to factual  
information, and not allowing the assessor to change his/her mind on the  
opinion of value. MPAC is stuck with the opinion of value, and cannot initiate a  
correction unless it is based on a factual error. . . . [Emphasis added.]  
[176] This finding clearly only refers to the authority to correct an error. This finding  
does not state that current value must be reassessed annually. The statement that an  
assessment may be corrected “for practically any reason prior to the roll being fixed”,  
cannot be interpreted to mean that that an assessment may be changed even though  
there has been no “defect, error, omission or misstatement”, as this is an express  
requirement of s. 32(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board observes that the Hearing  
Panel, other than citing s. 19(2) as relevant legislation, did not expressly refer to s. 19.2  
in its analysis. However, on the facts in this decision, it was unnecessary to do so, as  
the errors were clearly in respect of MPAC's understanding of the property’s  
characteristics as they existed on the general reassessment valuation day prescribed by  
s. 19.2 of the Act.  
[177] For these reasons, the Board concludes that this decision also does not stand as  
authority for the proposition that the Act provides for an annual reassessment of current  
value.  
Lenndorff Canadian Holdings Ltd. v. Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner,  
Region No. 23, 1988 CarswellOnt 3489, 22 O.M.B.R. 157, a decision of the Ontario  
Municipal Board issued on November 9, 1988 (“Lenndorff”)  
[178] The Appellants submit that the assessed person in Lenndorff successfully argued  
that changes in the retail market conditions in the City of London, which led to falling  
rents and increased vacancies, warranted an adjustment of the assessment of a  
59  
DM 177142  
shopping mall.  
[179] In addressing this submission, the Board observes that, while this was the result,  
the issue in the decision, stated at page 2, was the degree to which the assessment  
should be reduced to make it equitable with the assessment of similar real property in  
the area. The valuation day for determining the property value was not in issue. The  
Board further notes that this decision was made under a prior version of the Assessment  
Act. There is no indication that the legislative regime in force at the time was the same  
as the legislative regime in force under the current Act, as there is no reference to a  
section that is equivalent to s. 19.2 of the current Act. For these reasons, the Board  
concludes that it cannot rely on the analysis in this decision when determining the issue  
before the Board in this Motion.  
Non-Profit Seniors Housing of Kenora v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation,  
Region 32, 2015 58800 (ON ARB), a decision of the Board issued on  
September 18, 2015 (“Kenora”)  
[180] In Kenora, the property owner of an apartment building converted it to  
condominium units. Upon discovering that this change had the effect of increasing the  
value of the units, the property owner then proceeded to de-register the condominium  
units. The de-registration took effect on February 17, 2015. The Owner acknowledged  
that, as of, December 2014, the date of the return of the Assessment Roll for the 2015  
taxation year, the Assessment Roll correctly recorded the properties’ legal status as  
condominium units, but argued that MPAC could issue a supplementary assessment  
under s. 34(1)(b)(v) of the Act.  
[181] The Hearing Panel cited Williams, Gilbey, Inmet, and Scollard, in concluding that  
the return of the Assessment Roll “is a firm cutoff date” (see, paragraph 12). The  
Hearing Panel further concluded that MPAC lacked the statutory authority to issue a  
supplementary assessment under s. 34. The Hearing Panel also expressly confirmed  
that the current value of the condominium properties was not in dispute.  
60  
DM 177142  
[182] The Board observes that Kenora only affirms the Williams Principle. The Hearing  
Panel did not reference s. 19.2 as the issue of current value was not in dispute.  
Therefore, the Board finds that this decision is of no assistance in determining the issue  
before the Board in this Motion Hearing.  
Daralea Holdings Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 15,  
[2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 26, a decision of the Board issued on February 5, 2013  
(“Daralea”)  
[183] Daralea is a decision of the Board respecting appeals under s. 40 of the Act for  
the 2009 to 2012 assessment cycle regarding a shopping centre property. Due to a  
variation in vacancy rates, the Hearing Member found that MPAC's assessed value,  
determined in the general reassessment, should be reduced to one value for the 2009  
and 2010 taxation years, and a different value for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years.  
Therefore, in effect, the Hearing Member applied a different valuation day for these latter  
two years of the assessment cycle.  
[184] Although the Hearing Member cites s. 19.2 of the Act in the section of the  
decision entitled “The Legislation”, the Hearing Member did not address s. 19.2 in his  
analysis. Consequently, this decision provides no analysis to support a finding that the  
Act provides for an annual reassessment of current value.  
Claireville Holdings Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 9,  
2021 26729 (ON ARB), a decision of the Board issued on March 26, 2021  
(“Claireville”)  
[185] Claireville is decision of the Board respecting appeals under s. 40 of the Act for  
the 2012 and 2016 assessment cycles respecting three properties collectively  
considered as one. The main issue in this proceeding was whether the properties  
should be assessed as a land assembly, where their Highest and Best Use was based  
on their development potential as high-rise development, as opposed to their existing  
use as income producing commercial buildings. Property classification was not in issue.  
61  
DM 177142  
This decision confirms that “Highest and Best Use” is a valuation methodology concept  
which is applied when determining the current value of a property, and as such, Highest  
and Best Use is determined as of the applicable valuation day for determining current  
value.  
[186] The Hearing Member stated that the value of the properties should be assessed  
on an annual basis. The following are the relevant paragraphs of the decision setting  
out the rationale for this conclusion:  
Annual Assessment  
[13] Section 36(1) of the Act requires land to be assessed annually. Section  
36(2)prescribes that the annual Assessment Roll be returned to the municipality  
no later than the second Tuesday following December 1 of that year.  
Valuation Day  
[15] Section 19.2(1) paragraph 3 of the Act requires that the day as of which the  
current value of land is valued, for the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, is  
January1, 2012. Section 19.2(1) paragraph 4 of the Act requires that the day as  
of which the current value of land is valued, for the four taxation years from  
2017 to 2020, is January1, 2016.  
State and Condition Date  
[17] Annual assessments are based on the state and condition of the land, on  
the Assessment Roll return date, in the December immediately preceding any  
given taxation year. This is referred to as that taxation year’s state and condition  
date. (See Simmatis v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06  
2017 39816 (ON ARB) at paragraph 15).  
[18] The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) agrees with MPAC counsel’s  
submission that the “state and condition” of land includes its development  
potential.  
[19] Whether land has development potential value in excess of the value of its  
existing use is determined by appraisal methodology applying Highest and Best  
Use analysis.  
[20] The Highest and Best Use of the subject property on the state and condition  
date indicates the best approach to the valuation for the corresponding taxation  
year. (See General Motors of Canada Limited v Municipal Property Assessment  
Corporation, Region No. 27, 2017 3664 (ON ARB) (paragraphs10-13)  
(“General Motors”).)  
[21] The assessor’s task is to determine, annually, at the state and condition  
date, the Highest and Best Use of the land assessed, then establish the correct  
value of such annual determination by reference to the valuation of land of  
similar Highest and Best Use on the legislated valuation day.  
62  
DM 177142  
[187] In paragraph 21, the Hearing Member states that Highest and Best Use of the  
Subject Property is to be determined annually. The result is that the Hearing Member  
finds that the current value must be reassessed annually, and, to the extent that Highest  
and Best Use of the Subject Property could change from one taxation year to the next,  
so could the current value of the property. However, the Hearing Member then indicates  
that the determination of the quantum of the current value is to be determined by  
considering the value of lands “of similar Highest and Best Use”, as of the valuation day  
prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act, as stated in General Motors.  
[188] This analysis is problematic for two reasons. First, it requires that the analyses,  
opinions and conclusions to be applied when forming an opinion of a property’s value,  
must include consideration of two valuation days - the annual return date of the  
Assessment Roll to determine Highest and Best Use, and the valuation day prescribed  
by s. 19.2 to ascertain the quantum of current value based on comparable properties.  
This approach does not comply with the Act, which, as discussed earlier, requires that a  
property be valued as of a single valuation day, nor is it consistent with general property  
appraisal theory. Second, while the Hearing Member cites s. 19.2 of the Act, the  
Hearing Panel’s analysis does not address the fact that s. 19.2 of the Act requires that  
land be valued only once and that this is the current value to be reported for each  
taxation year in the assessment cycle.  
[189] In the end, the Hearing Member found that, for all taxation years under appeal,  
the Highest and Best Use of the properties was their existing use as of the applicable  
valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act. Therefore, he concluded that the correct  
current value, determined as of the valuation day, was to be applied to all taxation years  
in the assessment cycle. Nonetheless, the stated approach in determining current value  
is to reassess current value on an annual basis.  
[190] The Board also observes that Claireville does not support MPAC's position in this  
Motion Hearing that a property’s current value may be reassessed if there has been a  
‘change in state and condition’, but not if the change is due only to a change in ‘market  
63  
DM 177142  
conditions’. In Claireville, the parties did not dispute that the property could be annually  
reassessed based on a change in its Highest and Best Use. The decision in Claireville  
refers to The Appraisal of Real Estate, confirming that the determination of Highest and  
Best Use must be based on a market/marketability analysis (see chapters 7 and 12).  
Therefore, this confirms that a ‘change in state and condition’ can be due to a change in  
‘market conditions’. The Board notes that this is another example of how the ‘state and  
condition’ paradigm does not appear to establish clear criteria which the Board can  
consider and apply.  
[191] Regarding the Hearing Member’s statement at paragraph 17, this statement is  
simply an affirmation of the Williams Principle. The Hearing Member relies on Simmatis  
v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06, 2017 39816 (ON  
ARB), a decision of the Board issued on June 21, 2017 (“Simmatis”). The Board has  
reviewed the Simmatis decision. It only confirms the Williams Principle. Consequently,  
the Hearing Member in Claireville does not provide any additional interpretative analysis  
beyond what has been stated in General Motors.  
[192] In addition to the above review of the analysis in Claireville, the Board observes  
that the same Hearing Member appears to have adopted the opposite conclusion in  
Newcombe v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 04, 2020  
26216 (ON ARB), issued on March 31, 2020 (“Newcombe”), a decision cited by MPAC.  
In Newcombe, the Appellant owner of a residential property argued that flooding which  
occurred in 2017 and 2019, should be considered when determining the correct General  
Reassessment Value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day. At paragraphs 27 to 30,  
the Hearing Member stated:  
[27] It is important to understand that the assessment is made based on the  
state and condition of the lot on the roll return date (see General Motors of  
Canada Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 27,  
2017 3664 (ON ARB), paras. 11-12), but with market values of the  
statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016.  
[28] Pursuant to s. 36(2) of the Act, the roll return date for the 2017 taxation year  
was the second Tuesday of December 2016.  
64  
DM 177142  
[29] On January 1, 2016, on Mr. Newcombe’s evidence, there had never been  
floods such as those experienced in the springs of 2017 and 2019. On that day,  
based on past history, buyers and sellers would have discounted the flooding  
risk as more theoretical than real.  
[30] To consider changes in valuation day market perceptions of risks, as a  
result of the realization of risks occurring after the valuation day, defeats the  
purpose of a fixed valuation day. It is market perception at the valuation day that  
counts. [Emphasis added.]  
The Hearing Member then corrected the General Reassessment Value based on the  
January 1, 2016 valuation day, ruling that it applied to all the taxation years under  
appeal for the assessment cycle.  
[193] The Board observes that, in Claireville, the Hearing Member concluded that one  
‘state and condition’ factor which affects current value, i.e. Highest and Best Use, should  
be reassessed annually, while in Newcombe, the Hearing Member concluded that  
another ‘state and condition’ factor affecting current value, i.e. flood risk potential, should  
not. Therefore, this is an example which demonstrates that the application of the ‘state  
and condition’ paradigm produces inconsistent results.  
[194] For these reasons, the Board concludes that Claireville provides no probative  
analysis to support a finding that the Act provides for an annual reassessment of current  
value.  
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Claireville Holdings Limited, 2022  
ONSC 3293 () issued on June 3, 2022 ("Claireville – Div. Ct.")  
[195] MPAC appealed the Board’s decision in Claireville. The Divisional Court upheld  
the Board’s decision. The Court’s reasons are brief. The findings relevant to this Motion  
Hearing are set out in paragraphs 27 to 29:  
[27] Annual assessments are done so that changes in assessment can be made  
when there is a change in the state or condition of the property. If there is no  
change in the state or condition of the property, the assessed value would be  
expected to remain unchanged until current value is reassessed for a new four-  
year cycle.  
65  
DM 177142  
[28] Read in context, what the Board said was this: In determining the assessed  
value of a property when returning the assessment roll, the assessor must  
necessarily turn his or her mind to whether there has been a change to the state or  
condition of the property that affects its HBU. If there has been such a change, a  
new assessed value must be established for that HBU effective on the applicable  
valuation date prescribed in s.19.2.  
[29] I see no legal error in the reasoning of the Board  
[196] In considering this decision, the Board first observes that, as noted earlier in this  
Motion Decision, the 'state and condition' paradigm is based on the assumption that  
current value must be assessed on an annual basis. As stated in General Motors, the  
‘state and condition’ paradigm requires that the determination of current value in an  
annual reassessment requires consideration of two different valuation days.  
[197] The Divisional Court's reasons indicate that the parties did not ask the Court to  
decide whether the Act supports the application of a 'state and condition' paradigm when  
determining current value. Therefore, the Court’s findings must be considered in this  
context.  
[198] As the application of the ‘state and condition’ paradigm was not before by the  
Divisional Court, the Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of the relevant  
inter-dependent provisions of the Act, nor was it necessary for the Divisional Court to  
review the prior Board decisions which have been cited in this Motion Hearing in support  
of the assertion that the Act allows for the application of a 'state and condition' paradigm.  
[199] The Board further notes that Divisional Court did not provide a definition of 'state  
and condition' or 'change in state and condition'. The issue raised for the Divisional  
Court's consideration focused only on the Highest and Best Use of the properties under  
appeal. In this regard, the Board has already noted that Highest and Best Use is an  
appraisal theory concept. The term ‘Highest and Best Use’ is not defined or used in the  
Act or the General Regulation. Thus, Claireville – Div. Ct. does not address the specific  
issue before the Board in this Motion Hearing or provide guidance on how the 'state and  
condition' paradigm should be interpreted and applied. The decisions reviewed by the  
66  
DM 177142  
Board in this Motion Decision demonstrate the varied circumstances in which a party  
may claim that a property's current value should or should not be reassessed after the  
general reassessment, and, as has been discussed, the application of the 'state and  
condition' paradigm does not always produce consistent results.  
[200] Turning to the question of whether the Act requires an annual reassessment of  
current value, the Board notes that the parties accepted that s. 36 does permit an  
annual reassessment. Therefore, this issue was also not considered by the Divisional  
Court.  
[201] The Board now turns to the assertion that more than one valuation day must be  
considered when forming an opinion as to current value.  
[202] As noted earlier in this Motion Decision, the Act recognizes that “current value” as  
defined in the Act, will be determined by 'forming an opinion as to value'. The Board has  
long recognized that accepted property appraisal theory must be applied when forming  
such an opinion. Therefore, appraisal theory must be considered when interpreting the  
requirements of the Act. In this regard, the Board also notes that s. 16(b) of the  
Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 provides that the Board may  
“take notice of any generally recognized scientific or technical facts, information or  
opinions within its specialized knowledge.”  
[203] The Appraisal of Real Estate states that the relationships which create value are  
complex. Value will change as changes occur in several inter-dependent economic  
factors which interact in the marketplace to influence the relationship of supply and  
demand (see page 2.0). Considering two valuation days when forming an opinion as to  
current value, in effect, requires consideration of the status of the marketplace at two  
different points in time. As noted earlier in this Motion Decision, The Appraisal of Real  
Estate requires that current value be determined as of one effective date.  
67  
DM 177142  
[204] The Board observes that the decision in Claireville did not consider the above  
requirements of appraisal theory, nor is this addressed in the Divisional Court's decision.  
[205] While it is beyond the scope of this Motion Decision to engage in a detailed  
analysis of property appraisal theory, such theory recognizes that a property's value is  
derived from the status of the marketplace at the time a property is valued. Any  
deviation from this approach could render the appraiser's opinion of value unreliable.  
[206] The circumstances before the Board in this Motion Hearing also indicate that the  
application of the ‘state and condition’ paradigm is untenable. The Appellants argue that  
the ‘change in state and condition’ is the reduction in net operating income, in the  
context of the marketplace as it existed in the 2020 taxation year. However, following  
Claireville and General Motors, the quantum of the current value must be calculated  
based on the January 1, 2016 valuation day. Using the Income appraisal approach,  
current value is determined by multiplying net operating income by a capitalization rate  
that is derived from sales of comparable income-producing properties which occurred in  
the marketplace as it existed on the valuation day. The problem, here, is that properties,  
which were sold in the marketplace as it existed at one point in time, may not be  
comparable to a property as it existed in the marketplace at a different point in time. In  
this case, the marketplace as it existed on January 1, 2016, was very different from the  
marketplace as it existed in 2020. The Board observes that a similar difficulty arises  
where the change in question is a change in Highest and Best Use, i.e. where Highest  
and Best Use is determined based on the marketplace as it existed at one point in time,  
but the quantum of current value must be determined based on the marketplace as it  
existed at an earlier point in time.  
[207] Respecting the above observation, the Board refers again to the decision of the  
Supreme Court of Canada in Sun Life. In Sun Life, the applicable legal regime provided  
for municipal valuation every three years, “with certain provisions for modification if  
certain events happen, such as alteration, improvement, fire, etc.” (see page 224). The  
Court then addressed the scope of the assessment to be undertaken. The Court’s  
68  
DM 177142  
finding remains applicable to the circumstances in this Motion Hearing. At pages 224  
and 255, the Court stated:  
. . . The assessor should not look at past or subsequent or potential values. His  
valuation must be based on conditions as he finds them at the date of the  
assessment. In particular, in the present case, there was no ground for considering  
any other condition, as no suggestion of any kind appears in the record that there  
was, throughout the period of assessment, a prospect of any change.  
The Sun Life property as it stood at the time of the valuation in question, was  
occupied about sixty percent by the company itself for its own purposes and about  
forty per cent by tenants. That is how the assessors found the property at the time  
they made their valuation and that is the only aspect of the property that they had  
to take into consideration. If some material change took place during the three year  
period following the valuation, the charter of the City of Montreal provided for a  
fresh valuation taking into account those changes. Again, at the end of the three  
years, if the situation had been modified there was then the opportunity to modify  
the evaluation accordingly. But, for the valuation which had to be made and which  
is now the subject of the litigation, the property had to be taken as it stood then  
and as it was used and occupied.  
[Emphasis added.]  
The Board observes that the Court’s finding clearly does not support consideration of  
two valuation days when determining current value.  
[208] In addition, the Board further observes that neither the decision of the Hearing  
Member nor the Divisional Court provided any interpretation of the sections of the Act to  
indicate that the Act, itself, provides that current value may be assessed using two  
different valuation days.  
[209] The Board also notes that, in Claireville, the analysis and opinion of current value  
advanced by the appellants’ appraisal expert was based on one effective day, i.e. the  
general reassessment valuation day. The Hearing Member accepted this appraiser’s  
opinion as the correct current value of the subject properties, finding that this was the  
current value for all taxation years in the assessment cycle. Consequently, neither the  
Hearing Member nor the Divisional Court were required to address the evidentiary  
problems inherent in assessing current value as of two valuation days.  
69  
DM 177142  
[210] For these reasons, the Board concludes that the findings of the Divisional Court  
are not determinative of the issues which the Board must address in this Motion  
Decision.  
Trizec Equities Ltd v British Columbia (Assessor of Area No 9), [1985] BCJ No 32, 28  
MPLR 286, 30 ACWS (2d) 139 (“Trizec”)  
[211] This decision addressed the issue of whether, under the British Columbia  
Assessment Act in force at the time (the “BC Act”), a change in average vacancy rate is  
a “state and condition” that must be taken into account in determining the “actual value”  
of the property under appeal.  
[212] In determining whether this decision is applicable to a decision made under the  
Ontario’s current Act, it is important to emphasize two aspects of the BC Act. First, the  
BC Act defined the term “actual value”, which expressly referred to “state and condition”.  
Second, the legislative regime under the BC Act expressly provided for an annual  
reassessment of “actual value”.  
[213] As such, the Board cannot rely on the findings in this case, as the legislative  
provisions considered and applied by the Court are different from the legislative  
provisions under the Ontario Act. Consequently, this decision is of no assistance in  
determining the issue before the Board in this Motion Hearing.  
Peel Condominium No 57 et al and Regional Assessment Commissioner,  
Assessment Region No 15 et al (1984), 47 OR (2d) 466, 11 DLR (4th) 627, a decision  
of the Ontario Divisional Court issued on September 6, 1984 (“Peel”)  
[214] This decision addressed a former version of the Ontario Assessment Act in force  
at the time, more specifically, a section of the Act which required that the assessing  
authority could alter the value of the assessment if, in the assessor’s opinion, the  
assessor’s opinion of value is inequitable with respect to the assessment of similar real  
property in the vicinity. Therefore, this decision addressed the question of equitable  
70  
DM 177142  
reduction, not the determination of current value or the correct valuation day for  
determining current value.  
[215] Regarding the issue of the correct valuation day, it is also important to emphasize  
that the former version of the Act allowed for an annual reassessment of current value.  
[216] As such, the Board cannot rely on the findings in this case, as the decision did  
not address the correct valuation day to determine current value, and the legislative  
provisions considered and applied by the Court are different from the legislative  
provisions under Ontario’s Act. Consequently, this decision is of no assistance in  
determining the issue before the Board in this Motion Hearing.  
Summary  
[217] Because the requirement set out in s. 19.2 of the Act is clear and unequivocal,  
the assertion that either s. 36(1) or s. 32 of the Act can override s. 19.2 to require an  
annual reassessment of current value, must be supported by a cogent and persuasive  
interpretative analysis of the Act. For the reasons stated above, none of the decisions  
cited provide such analysis. Consequently, the Board finds that none of the decisions  
cited by the Appellants stand as persuasive authority that, under the Act, the current  
value of a property must be reassessed annually.  
[218] The Board further notes that the vast majority of decisions issued by the Board  
adopt the interpretation that the valuation day for determining current value for each  
taxation year in an assessment cycle is the valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the  
Act, and that changes affecting the property which occur after the general reassessment  
valuation day cannot be considered when determining current value. This includes two  
Board decisions cited by MPAC which the Board has reviewed but not summarized in  
this Motion Decision:  
•
Sargent v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 02, [2011]  
O.A.R.B.D. No. 138 (“Sargent”)  
71  
DM 177142  
•
Prosser v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No 09, [2007]  
O.A.R.B.D No. 580 (“Prosser”)  
Therefore, the Board observes that the Board decisions cited by the Appellants are  
inconsistent with the Board’s established jurisprudence on this issue.  
Analysis of decisions cited by MPAC  
[219] The Board first notes that, in its reply submissions, MPAC has also cited and  
relied on General Motors. As noted above, MPAC also relies on Sargent and Prosser,  
and Wandlyn. The Board now proceeds with its review of the decision in Wandlyn.  
Nova Scotia (Director of Assessment) v. Wandlyn Inns Ltd., 1996 NSCA 80 (),  
issued on April 11, 1996 (“Wandlyn”)  
[220] Under the Assessment Act R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 23, in force at the time (the “Nova  
Scotia Act”), the Director of Assessment was authorized to prescribe a past date as a  
valuation day for determining a property’s value for municipal taxation purposes. The  
Court described this as a “base date” (Wandlyn, page 3). At pages 6 and 7 of Wandlyn,  
the Court stated:  
The introduction of the base date was made necessary by the current practice  
of assessing commercial properties on a three-year cycle for reasons of  
economy and convenience. In a reassessment year, all factors affecting the  
value of a property are taken into account, including the state of the market as  
well as the state of the property. Assessment Rolls are updated in off years  
between reassessments only by considering changes to the physical state of  
the property such as additions or demolitions, and market trends are ignored.  
Values remain those of the reassessment year, or base date.  
[221] The Court recorded the relevant provisions of the Nova Scotia Assessment Act in  
force at the time (the “Nova Scotia Act”):  
Valuation  
The valuation of the property is governed by section 42 (1) of the Assessment  
Act which states:  
72  
DM 177142  
42 (1) All property shall be assessed at its market value, such value  
being the amount which in the opinion of the assessor would be paid if it  
were sold on a date prescribed by the Director in the open market by a  
willing seller to a willing buyer, but in forming his opinion the assessor  
shall have regard to the assessment of other properties in the  
municipality so as to ensure that taxation falls in a uniform manner upon  
all residential and resource property and in a uniform manner upon all  
commercial property.  
Subsections 42 (2) and (3) provide:  
(2) The Director may from time to time prescribe a past date as a base  
for the determination of the market value of a property for the purposes  
of subsection (1).  
(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the assessment of a  
property shall reflect its state as of the date referred to in subsection (2)  
of Section 52.  
Section 52 (2) prescribes that:  
52 (2) The assessment shown on the roll shall be the assessment that  
reflects the state of the property as it existed on the first day of  
December immediately preceding the filing of the roll."  
[Emphasis added.]  
[222] Subsequent to the assessment of Mr. Wandlyn’s property as of the “base date”,  
his property suffered a significant decrease in market value. For this reason, Mr.  
Wandlyn appealed the assessment.  
[223] The Court, nonetheless, rejected this interpretation, stating at page 14:  
In my opinion the Legislature in enacting s. 52(2) by use of the phrase "state of  
the property" intended that the Director of Assessment, in assessing property in  
the off year, …, reflect only changes in the physical condition of the property  
and not changes in market value arising out of other than physical changes. To  
interpret the section as reflecting market value due to other than physical  
changes as of the "state date" would nullify the provision of s. 42(1) which  
mandates that the Director assess property at market value at a date prescribed  
by the Director; . . .  
The Court went on to state that, that s. 52(2) must mean something, and to interpret it  
otherwise, would “… destroy the base date concept of the assessment legislation …”,  
further stating that “In enacting s. 52(2) the Legislature could not have intended such a  
73  
DM 177142  
result.”  
[224] In its review of this decision, the Board first observes that the Nova Scotia Act is  
similar to the regime in Ontario’s Act, in that they both apply a single valuation day for  
determining a property’s value for several taxation years. However, that is where the  
similarity ends. Section 42(1) expressly defines the value of the property as “market  
value” and s. 52(2) expressly provides that the assessment on the roll “be the  
assessment that reflects the state of the property” [emphasis added]. In contrast, as  
previously noted, Ontario’s Act, in particular, s. 36(1), does not refer to “market value” or  
the ‘state of the property’. In addition, the wording in s. 52(2) of the Nova Scotia Act, i.e.  
that the assessment on the roll should “reflect the state of the property”, appears to  
indicate that the Nova Scotia Act required that the “market value” of a property be  
annually assessed. For these reasons, the Board finds that the analysis in Wandlyn  
does not support a conclusion that the statutory provisions of Ontario’s Act apply a ‘state  
and condition’ legislative regime, in which a property’s value must be annually  
reassessed.  
[225] However, the Court’s finding in Wandlyn does reinforce that, in a legislative  
regime which prescribes a ‘fixed’ valuation day for determining a property’s value, the  
return of the assessment on the assessment roll does not mean that the valuation day  
for determining the current value of a property must be the date the Assessment Roll is  
returned. In this regard, the Court made the following observations at pages 14 and 15:  
A reading of s. 42(1) of the Act as a whole satisfies me that the duty on the  
Director to ensure that taxation falls in a uniform manner upon commercial  
property in the municipality relates to the Director "forming his opinion" of  
market value of the property at the date prescribed by the Director pursuant to s.  
42(2), in this case, January 1st, 1988 and not uniformity of taxation in years  
subsequent to the base date year.  
…
Assuming that the Director, in a re-assessment year, has properly performed his  
duty under s. 42(1), all assessable property will have been valued as of the  
base date at market value so that changes in market value in subsequent years  
due to market conditions, as opposed to physical changes in the property  
should not affect uniformity of taxation to any significant extent,  
74  
DM 177142  
[226] Regarding the impact on the property owner, the Court, at pages 14, and 15  
made the following observations:  
The base date/state date method of assessment is such that a taxpayer in a  
deflationary market is stuck for a period of years with assessment based on  
market value at a past date. Conversely, in a rising market the taxpayer may  
have the benefit of a lower assessment in relation to market value in  
subsequent years. The tax rate set in the off years will be fixed by the  
municipality based on its financial needs and the assessments of the property in  
the municipality by the Director irrespective of whether the assessments are  
above or below current market value.  
. . .  
Unfortunately, Wandlyn's property has suffered a significant decrease in market  
value. That is one of the deficiencies in this method of assessment but that is  
what the Legislature has put in place. We cannot change the Act nor interpret it  
in a manner that is inconsistent with the legislative intent as expressed in the  
words of the relevant sections.  
[227] The Board notes that these observations apply equally to the legislative regime  
under Ontario’s Act. However, the Board makes an additional observation that one  
advantage of the ‘base date’ regime may be that it stabilizes, to a significant degree, the  
amount of tax to be levied over the four taxation years in an assessment cycle. This  
financial predictability would assist both the taxpayer and the municipality in planning  
and managing their financial affairs.  
[228] The Board further notes that there may be other sound economic policy reasons  
to explain why the Ontario Legislature has enacted the current regulatory regime  
embodied in the Act. Whether the Legislature has chosen the best regime may be the  
subject of policy debate. However, that is not for the Board to decide. The Board’s  
jurisdiction, on an appeal, is to interpret and apply the legislation as written.  
Conclusion Summary  
[229] The Board repeats its conclusion stated above: Sections 32, 33, 34, 39.1, 40,  
and 40.1 of the Act provide a comprehensive scheme for making amendments to a  
75  
DM 177142  
property’s General Reassessment Value on the Assessment Roll. However, only s. 33  
and s. 34 provide that current value may be determined based on a valuation day which  
follows the general reassessment valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act.  
Section 36 does not allow for an annual reassessment of current value, nor is it  
necessary to impose an interpretative gloss on the wording of the legislation by adopting  
and applying a ‘state and condition’ paradigm.  
Application of the Act’s Legislative Regime to the circumstances before the Board in this  
Motion  
[230] In light of the Board’s analyses and findings above, the current value of the  
Subject Properties for the 2021 taxation year will be the General Reassessment Value,  
unless the Appellants have demonstrated that this value can be changed pursuant to  
sections 32, 33, or 34 of the Act. The circumstances of the Subject Properties for the  
2021 taxation year do not indicate that any of these sections apply.  
[231] Regarding s. 32, the Appellants rely solely on a reduction of the income  
generated by these properties that only occurred in 2020. Obviously, information which  
was correct on January 1, 2016, may no longer be correct for 2021. However, the  
Appellants do not, in any way, suggest that this change in information indicates that  
MPAC relied on incorrect information when MPAC conducted its general reassessment  
of the current value of the Subject Properties as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day.  
For this reason, the Board finds that s. 32 of the Act does not apply to the circumstances  
described by the Appellants in this Motion.  
[232] There is no suggestion that there has been a s. 33 omission in this case, and  
s. 34 clearly doesn’t apply because there has been no improvement to the Subject  
Properties (and, in any event, an amendment can only be made if current value has  
increased). Therefore, the Board finds that the applicable valuation day for the 2021  
taxation year is January 1, 2016. As the current values of the Subject Properties as of  
76  
DM 177142  
this valuation day are already under appeal, there is no new issue to be addressed  
respecting the current values for the 2021 taxation year.  
Issue 2: Should the Appellants be granted an extension of the due date for  
serving an amended Statement of Issues, to allow them to raise the issue  
that the correct current value of the Subject Properties for the 2021  
taxation year is different from the correct current value they have claimed  
for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years?  
Findings on Issue 2  
[233] As the Board has found that the Appellants have not raised a new issue for the  
2021 taxation year, an extension of the due date for serving an amended Statement of  
Issues is not required. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the Board to address Issue 2.  
ORDER  
[234] The Appellant’s Motion is dismissed.  
"Dirk VanderBent"  
DIRK VANDERBENT  
VICE-CHAIR  
Assessment Review Board  
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb  
77  
DM 177142  
Schedule A  
78  
DM 177142  
Schedule A – continuation  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission