Zaidan Group Ltd. and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 23, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

• Judge: Osler, Anderson and Gray, JJ.
• Case Date: October 24, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 6 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. Assess. Commr. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 319 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Zaidan Group Ltd. and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region 23

Indexed As: Zaidan Group Ltd. and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 23

Ontario Divisional Court

Osler, Anderson and Gray, JJ.

November 13, 1984.

Summary:

The taxpayers appealed their real property tax assessment of $880,080 to the Assessment Review Court and then to the County Court. The County Court reduced the assessment to $626,083. The Commissioner appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Ontario Municipal Board increased the assessment to $766,648. The taxpayers appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7258

Assessment appeals - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof regarding the amount of the assessment - A taxpayer alleged that on an appeal by the Crown to the Ontario Municipal Board that the onus of proof respecting the amount of the assessment was on the Crown - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the onus of proof regarding the amount of the assessment before the Assessment Review Board and the Ontario Municipal Board is on the taxpayer regardless of who initiates the appeal - See paragraph 10.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7259

Assessment appeals - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof regarding method of assessment - The Ontario Divisional Court distinguished between the onus of proof regarding the amount of the assessment and the onus of proof regarding the method of assessment - See paragraph 12.

Real Property Tax - Topic 7159

Assessment appeals - Appeals to the courts - Review of fact findings made by boards - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that the determination of market value by a board (including the exclusion of evidence of comparable sales) is a question of fact properly within a board's province - The court stated that the decision by a board to exclude evidence of a comparable sale should not be interfered with unless the grounds for exclusion "were so egregious as to constitute no basis in law" - See paragraph 25.

Cases Noticed:

Dreifus v. Royds (1921), 61 S.C.R. 326, refd to. [para. 12].

Campeau Developments Ltd. et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 29 et al. (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 607, refd to. [para. 16].

Regional Assessment Commissioners Region No. 2 et al. v. Ontario Steel Products Co. Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 721; 5 N.R. 491; 61 D.L.R.(3d) 468, refd to. [para. 18].

Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 13 et al. v. Downtown Oshawa Property Owners' Association et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1030; 22 N.R. 152; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 303, refd to. [para. 18].

Peel Condominium No. 57 et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Assessment Region No. 15 et al., 5 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 22].

Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 11 v. Nesse Holdings Limited et al. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 134, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 347, sect. 95(1) [para. 2].

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 31, sect. 13(1), sect. 18(1), sect. 18(2), sect. 36(2), sect. 36(6) [para. 8]; sect. 39(1), sect. 39(11), sect. 39(12), sect. 47(1), sect. 47(5), sect. 49(1), sect. 49(2) [para. 7]; sect. 65(1) [para. 22].

Counsel:

E. Richmond, Q.C., for appellants;

Mrs. M.A. Robinson, for respondent Commissioner.

This appeal was heard by Osler, Anderson and Gray, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on October 24, 1984. The decision of the court was delivered by Anderson, J., and was released on November 13, 1984.