720 Spadina Ltd. et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 9 et al., (2001) 144 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

• Judge: O'Leary, Meehan and Carnwath, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 16, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 144 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

720 Spadina Ltd. v. Assess. Commr. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.061

720 Spadina Limited and The Co-Owners Named in the Schedule Filed With the Court (appellants) v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 9 and The Corporation of the City of Toronto (respondents)

(Court File No. 861/97)

Indexed As: 720 Spadina Ltd. et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 9 et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Leary, Meehan and Carnwath, JJ.

April 17, 2001.

Summary:

720 Spadina Ltd. owned a mixed-use building, several floors of which were residential rental units. In a complicated series of transactions, the individual units were sold to "co-owners", who each purchased a percentage interest in a 999 year lease together with a licence to occupy a particular unit. The Regional Assessment Commissioner continued to assess the property as an income-producing multi-residential rental property. The co-owners claimed they should be assessed at the same rate as condominiums. The Ontario Municipal Board dismissed their appeal and 720 Spadina Ltd. further appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal. The residential portion of the building was so similar to condominiums and so dissimilar to income-producing residential property that it should have been assessed accordingly.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1681

Persons and property liable to assessment - Leasehold property - General - Individual residential units were sold to "co-owners", who each purchased a percentage interest in a 999 year lease together with a licence to occupy a particular unit - The Ontario Municipal Board upheld the Regional Assessment Commissioner's assessment of the property as an income-producing multi-residential rental property - The co-owners claimed they should be assessed at the same rate as condominiums - The Ontario Divisional Court agreed - The court held that "For the Board to conclude that [this] leasehold interest could not be considered an interest in 'land', 'real property' or 'real estate' for the purposes of the Assessment Act imports arid historical concepts of property law into an area where logic should prevail over the accidents of history. In so doing, I find the Board failed to meet the standard of correctness it faces when construing a statute other than its own" - See paragraphs 7 to 13.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1721

Persons and property liable to assessment - Residential property - General - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 1681 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 5309

Valuation - Valuation principles - Uniformity - Similar assessments/values for similar properties - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 1681 ].

Cases Noticed:

Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region 10 et al. v. Xerox of Canada Ltd. (1980), 11 O.M.B.R. 238, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Crabbs, [1934] S.C.R. 523, refd to. [para. 9].

York County Quality Foods Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15 et al. (1990), 45 O.A.C. 303 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Movel Restaurants Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner No. 9 (1990), 25 O.M.B.R. 38 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-31, sect. 60(1) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Michael Bowman, for the appellants;

Chester Gryski, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 16, 2001, by O'Leary, Meehan and Carnwath, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. Carnwath, J., delivered the following decision for the court on April 17, 2001.