Halifax Developments Ltd. v. Director of Assessment (N.S.) and Halifax (City),

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citation: (1983), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 455 (CoCt)
• Date: 06 January 1983

Halifax Dev. v. Assessment Director (1983), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 455 (CoCt);

    114 A.P.R. 455

MLB headnote and full text

Halifax Developments Limited v. Director of Assessment and City of Halifax

(C.H. 34806)

Indexed As: Halifax Developments Ltd. v. Director of Assessment (N.S.) and Halifax (City)

Nova Scotia County Court

District Number One

O Hearn, C.C.J.

January 6, 1983.

Summary:

The Director of Assessment appealed the assessment of the Nova Scotia Assessment Appeal Board for MacKeen Towers; Scotia Towers; Duke Tower; Barrington Tower; Trade Mart and Scotia Square and Parkade, all buildings in the Scotia Square complex. Halifax Developments Ltd. appealed the assessments for Scotia Square and Parkade. The Nova Scotia County Court increased the assessments for Barrington Tower and the Trade Mart, and lowered the assessment for the other four buildings.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5300

Valuation - Valuation principles - Uniformity - The Nova Scotia County Court held that uniformity was more important than rigid adherence to actual cash values in determining the amount at which property is to be assessed under the Assessment Act - See paragraph 15.

Real Property Tax - Topic 5264

Valuation - Valuation principles - Prohibited considerations - The Nova Scotia County Court held that for assessment purposes, an assessor may consider any factor that a prudent investor would consider in determining the market value of the property - However, the court further stated that no assessment should be based on a market value inflated by purely speculative factors - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Real Property Tax - Topic 3575

Valuation - Business property - Income value - The Nova Scotia County Court held that the capitalization of net operating income approach was the most suitable method of valuation in assessing investment property, where the sole economic interest of the owner was its income producing capacity - See paragraphs 33 to 40.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1684

Persons and property liable to assessment - Leasehold property - Leasehold improvements - The owner of the Scotia Square complex challenged the inclusion of commercial leasehold improvements in the individual stores in the valuation for assessment - The Nova Scotia County Court held that it was reasonable for the assessor to assess leasehold improvements at their initial cost and to allow them to be depreciated over the term of the lease - See paragraphs 97 to 100.

Real Property Tax - Topic 606

Assessment - Methods of - Large complex - Comprising several parcels - The owner of the Scotia Square complex submitted that there should be a separate assessment for each lot of land in the complex, which would decrease the market value for assessment because of the non-recognition of the benefits of common ownership - The Nova Scotia County Court held that there should be only one assessment, and that any increase in value because of the unitary ownership of the complex must be reflected in the assessment of each of its component businesses by apportioning that value among them - See paragraphs 44 to 48.

Real Property Tax - Topic 3586

Valuation - Business property - Rental or income value - Capitalization rate - The Nova Scotia County Court held that it was more suitable to use a single capitalization rate for valuing a complex like Scotia Square for assessment purposes than to calculate a separate capitalization rate for each component business - See paragraph 103.

Real Property Tax - Topic 3584

Valuation - Business property - Rental or income value - Vacancy rate - The Nova Scotia County Court referred to the correct formula for determining the vacancy rate of apartment and office buildings for the purpose of assessing the property - See paragraphs 110 to 114.

Real Property Tax - Topic 3588

Valuation - Business property - Rental or income value - Income - Exclusions - The Nova Scotia County Court held that because refrigerators and stoves in an apartment were not assessable property, their undepreciated value should be deducted from the capitalized value of the apartment building in assessing the property, but only if they affected the net income from which the capitalized value of the building was derived - See paragraphs 119 to 124.

Words and Phrases

Actual cash value - The Nova Scotia County Court referred to the meaning of the phrase "actual cash value" as found in s. 38 of the Assessment Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 14 - See paragraphs 16 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Glace Bay v. Seaboard Power Corporation Limited, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 826 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Mindamar Metals Corporation v. Richmond (1953), 33 M.P.R. 75 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Mersey Paper Company v. County of Queens (1959), 42 M.P.R. 297; 18 D.L.R.(2d) 19 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. City of Montreal, [1950] S.C.R. 220; [1950] 2 D.L.R. 785; affirmed [1952] 2 D.L.R. 81; [1951] W.N. 575 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

B.F. Wood v. Queens (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 798 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Sydney (1973), 5 N.S.R.(2d) 785 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lehdorff Management Ltd. v. Dartmouth (1975), 15 N.S.R.(2d) 40; 14 A.P.R. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

McGray v. Yarmouth (1976), 18 N.S.R.(2d) 11; 20 A.P.R. 11, refd to. [para. 16].

Morgan v. Halifax (1976), 20 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 27 A.P.R. 356 (N.S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Olivet Development Ltd. v. Antigonish (1978), 30 N.S.R.(2d) 191; 49 A.P.R. 191 (N.S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hebb v. Lunenburg (1979), 32 N.S.R.(2d) 427; 54 A.P.R. 427 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Gateway Realty Ltd. v. Bridgewater (1978), 30 N.S.R.(2d) 438; 49 A.P.R. 438 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Morash v. Municipality of Chester (1961), 28 D.L.R.(2d) 428 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Re Bell Telephone Company and The City of Hamilton (1898), 25 O.A.R. 351, refd to. [para. 18].

Re Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company (1939), 14 M.P.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Company v. Antigonish, [1940] S.C.R. 616; 51 C.R.T.C. 198, refd to. [para. 18].

Stock Exchange Building Corp. Ltd. v. Vancouver, [1945] 2 D.L.R. 663; [1945] 2 W.W.R. 248; 61 B.C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 19].

Grampian Realties Co. v. Montreal East, [1932] 1 D.L.R. 705 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Lord Advocate v. Earl of Home (1891), 28 Sc.L.R. 289, refd to. [para. 19].

Bishop of Victoria v. City of Victoria, [1933] 4 D.L.R. 524, refd to. [para. 21].

Great Western and Metropolitan Railway Companies v. Kensington Assessment Committee, [1916] 1 A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 2].

B.R. Wood Estate v. Municipality of Queens (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 798, refd to. [para. 22].

McGray et al. v. The Municipality of the District of Yarmouth (1976), 18 N.S.R.(2d) 11; 20 A.P.R. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Bowater Mersey Paper Co. Limited v. Digby Municipality (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 57 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Great Central Railway Company v. Banbury Union Assessment Committee, [1909] A.C. 78, refd to. [para. 25].

North and South Western Railway Company v. Brentford Union, 13 App. Cas. 592, refd to. [para. 29].

Morgan v. City of Halifax (1976), 20 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 27 A.P.R. 356, refd to. [para. 75].

Bennett v. Dartmouth (1978), 2 N.S.R. 669, aff'd 2 N.S.R. 655 (C.A.), appld. [para. 85].

Re Marley and Sandwich (1932), 41 O.W.N. 178, refd to. [para. 101].

Re Hiram Walker & Sons Ltd. and Walkerville (1931), 41 O.W.N. 6, affd. [1933] S.C.R. 247; [1933] 3 D.L.R. 433, refd to. [para. 101].

Richmond v. Ashton, [1962] O.R. 49; 31 D.L.R.(2d) 12, refd to. [paras. 101, 128].

J.D. Irving Ltd. v. Minister of Municipal Affairs (N.B.) (1978), 22 N.B.R.(2d) 234; 39 A.P.R. 234 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

Morash v. Municipality of Chester (1961), 28 D.L.R.(2d) 428, refd to. [para. 102].

Hebb v. Town of Lunenburg (1979), 32 N.S.R.(2d) 427; 54 A.P.R. 427, refd to. [para. 102].

Rafuse v. T. Eaton Co. (Maritimes) Ltd. (1957), 40 M.P.R. 149, refd to. [para. 126].

Argles v. McMath (1894), 26 O.R. 224, affd. 23 O.A.R. 44, refd to. [para. 127].

Re Canadian Northern Rwy. and Omemee School district (1906), 4 W.L.R. 547; 6 Terr.L.R. 281, refd to. [para. 127].

Reamsbottom v. Haileybury (1919), 45 O.L.R. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 14, sect. 1(a) [para. 101]; sect. 23 [para. 43]; sect. 38, sect. 39(1) [para. 12].

Assessment Act, S.N.S. 1981, c. 15, sect. 38 [para. 18].

Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, 33 Vict. c. 67, sect. 4 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 32, p. 60 [para. 26].

Manning, Assessment and Rating (4th Ed. 1962), p. 166 [para. 45].

North, Real Estate Investment Analysis and Valuation (2nd Ed. 1976), [para. 137].

Canadian Year Book, 1980-81, p. 869 [para. 157].

Counsel:

Douglas J. Keefe, for the Director of Assessment;

John S. McFarlane and David A. Miller, for Halifax Developments Limited;

Mary Ellen Donovan, for the City of Halifax.

This case was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before O HEARN, C.C.J., of the Nova Scotia County Court of District Number One, who delivered the following judgment on January 6, 1983.