Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Inmet Mining Corp. et al., (2002) 163 O.A.C. 59 (DC)

• Judge: Pierce, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: July 31, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 163 O.A.C. 59 (DC)

Municipal Prop. v. Inmet Mining Corp. (2002), 163 O.A.C. 59 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.036

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (applicant) v. Inmet Mining Corporation, Minnova Inc. and Superior-Greenstone District School Board (formerly known as Lake Superior Locality Education) (respondents)

(D01-0018)

Indexed As: Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Inmet Mining Corp. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Pierce, J.

September 6, 2002.

Summary:

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board which reduced the current value assessments of certain property (a zinc mine).

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Pierce, J., dismissed the application for leave.

Real Property Tax - Topic 3661

Valuation - Business property - Considerations - General - [See Real Property Tax - Topic 3903 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 3903

Valuation - Particular business properties - Land occupied for mines and minerals - A zinc mine closed in 1999 - The Assessment Review Board reduced the current value assessments of the mine property - In seeking leave to appeal from the Board's decision, the applicant argued that the Board confused the worth of the mine as an on-going operation, taking into consideration the depletion of ore reserves, with the value of the buildings located at the mine site - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Pierce, J., stated that the Board was entitled to consider that the mine was at the end of its economic life, and situated in a remote location, in arriving at a value for its buildings - To consider current value without considering the context in which the buildings were situate would be an error - See paragraphs 19 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 9 v. Templeton Management Ltd. et al., [1992] O.J. No. 1343 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Toronto (City) v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 39 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Juno Developments (Parry Sound) Ltd. v. Parry Sound (Town) et al. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 95 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Sunnybrae Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board, [1977] O.J. No. 686 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

NSP Investments Ltd. v. Joint Board (Consolidated Hearings Act) et al. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 224; 72 O.R.(2d) 379 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 19 v. Dofasco Inc. (1992), 56 O.A.C. 81; 10 O.R.(3d) 741 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

Jack N.M. Jamieson, for the applicant;

Phillip L. Sanford, for the respondents, Inmet Mining Corporation and Minnova Inc.

This application was heard on July 31, 2002, at Thunder Bay, Ontario, before Pierce, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who released the following decision on September 6, 2002.