Barnett (P.) Construction Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15 et al., (1998) 111 O.A.C. 157 (DC)

• Judge: Lesage, C.J.O.C., Boland and Swinton, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 08, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 111 O.A.C. 157 (DC)

Barnett Constr. v. Assess. Commr. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 157 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.039

P. Barnett Construction Limited, now or also known as P. Barnett Construction Corp., and 716083 Ontario Limited (applicants/respondents in appeal) v. The Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15 and The Corporation of the City of Burlington (respondents/appellants in appeal)

(Court File V869/96)

Indexed As: Barnett (P.) Construction Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15 et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Lesage, C.J.O.C., Boland and Swinton, JJ.

June 3, 1998.

Summary:

In 1987, a land owner obtained the consent of the Land Division Committee of the Regional Municipality of Halton for the registration of a lease of part of its farmlands (1.25 acres) to be used as industrial land. The unleased land (12.54 acres) was subse­quently assessed as industrial in 1995. The owner sought a farm assessment in ac­cordance with previous assessments.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in an unreported decision, held that the unleased land should be assessed as farm­lands. The Regional Assessment Commis­sioner appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Swinton, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1741

Persons and property liable to assessment -Mixed-use property - General - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 5023 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 5023

Valuation - Farmland - What constitutes farmland - A land owner, with the consent of the Regional Land Division Committee (RLDC), leased a small portion of its farmlands to be used as industrial lands - The entire parcel of land had one munici­pal address and one assessment roll num­ber - The remaining farmland was subse­quently assessed as industrial - The owner sought a farm assessment in accordance with previous assessments - The Ontario Div­isional Court held that RLDC's consent to the conveyance of the leased lands created two separate parcels of land for assessment purposes - A separate as­sessment was required for the lands be­cause they were separately occupied - Similar real property in the area was as­sessed as farmlands - The court affirmed that the leased land should be assessed as industrial lands and the remaining lands classified and assessed as farmlands.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5309

Valuation - Valuation principles - Uni­formity - Similar assessments/values for similar properties - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 5023 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cencourse Project Inc. et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27 and Windsor (City) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 130; 18 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Walker v. Uxbridge (Township) et al. (1980), 13 M.P.L.R. 196 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1983), 15 O.M.B.R. 307 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Howard (Russ) Construction Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 21 (1987), 21 O.A.C. 311 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

Monarch Construction Ltd. v. Hamilton (City) et al. (1985), 51 O.R.(2d) 712 (H.C.), dist. [para. 14].

Myers v. Regional Assessment Commis­sioner, Region No. 32 et al. (1991), 51 O.A.C. 157 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 14].

Baker v. Belleville Collectors Market Ltd. (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 157 (Dist. Ct.), folld. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-31, sect. 14(2)(2) [para. 13]; 19(3) [para. 9]; sect. 46(1) [para. 3]; sect. 60(1) [para. 16].

Assessment Act Regulations, O.Reg. 266/96, sect. 3 [para. 30].

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-13, sect. 50(1)(3)(f) [para. 10]; sect. 50(6) [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Osborn's Law Dictionary [para. 10].

Counsel:

Margaret L. Waddell, for the respondents in appeal;

Shawn R. Douglas, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard at Milton, Ontario, on February 8, 1998, before Lesage, C.J.O.C., Boland and Swinton, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The judgment of the court was released on June 3, 1998, including the following opinions:

Boland, J. (Lesage, C.J.O.C., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

Swinton, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 20 to 31.