Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 et al. v. Graham et al., (1993) 67 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

• Judge: Tarnopolsky, Krever and Arbour, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 21, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 67 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

Assess. Commr. v. Graham (1993), 67 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3, and the Corporation of the City of Kanata (respondents) v. Donald Graham, Esther Graham and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 221 (appellants)

(No. C10042)

Indexed As: Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 et al. v. Graham et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Tarnopolsky, Krever and Arbour, JJ.A.

October 21, 1993.

Summary:

Condominium unit owners appealed the assessment of their unit to the Assessment Appeal Board. The Board allowed their appeal. The Regional Assessment Commis­sioner appealed.

McRae, J., overturned the Board's decision. The unit owners appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Sirois, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The unit owners appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Assessment Review Board.

Real Property Tax - Topic 2646

The assessment roll - Equalization of the roll - Vicinity defined - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in the case of a municipality which has had its assessment roll equalized for a particular year pursuant to s. 63(3) of the Assessment Act, the word "vicinity" in s. 65(2) of the Act (respecting the assessment of condominium units), may be interpreted to mean not the whole of the municipality but a smaller area delineated by the Assessment Review Board - "Vicinity" may mean an entire municipality, but it may also mean a smaller portion thereof, depending on the appropriate geographical base that will yield meaningful comparables.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordi­nary meaning of words - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that departure from the plain, ordinary meaning of a word in a statute should only be resorted to in the face of an absurdity or inconsistency that is apparent from the very language of the statute - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

Peel Condominium Corp. No. 57 et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner et al. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 358; 47 O.R.(2d) 466, refd to. [para. 6].

Fogh-Dohmsmidt v. Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 32 (1981), 16 M.P.L.R. 199 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Joshi v. Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 11 (1985), 18 O.M.B.R. 88, refd to. [para. 13].

Mount Citadel Ltd. v. Regional Assess­ment Commissioner, Region No. 11 (1980), 13 O.M.B.R. 242, refd to. [para. 13].

Ritchie v. Nepean (Township), [1971] 1 O.R. 459 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

York Condominium Corp. 460 v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 11 (1985), 17 O.M.B.R. 74 (Assessment Appeal Board), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 31, sect. 62 [para. 17]; sect. 63 [paras. 17, 21]; sect. 63(1) [paras. 4-5]; sect. 63(3) [paras. 1-2, 4-5, 11, 14-16, 18-20]; sect. 65 [para. 21]; sect. 65(1) [paras. 4, 9, 13, 21]; sect. 65(2) [paras. 1-2, 4, 6, 14-15, 18-23].

Assessment Amendment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-31, sect. 60(3) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 47 to 57 [para. 13].

Counsel:

William F. Burrows, for the appellants;

J.M. Canapini, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 21, 1993, before Tarnopolsky, Krever and Arbour, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Arbour, J.A., and released on October 21, 1993.