Bernard Cowan

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 145 to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The Board cautioned that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board approved the draft procedural order presented by the parties and directed that the matters be scheduled for a hearing event in accordance with the order.

The Board noted that the procedural order was not filed by the previously ordered deadline, but its adoption did not negate a prior Board Order.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-tenant industrial building for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Both parties agreed that the initial assessment of $4,611,000 was excessive and presented revised valuations based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the sales evidence, excluded certain distressed and multi-property sales, and determined a median sales price per square foot.

The Board reduced the assessment to $4,166,000, finding this current value to be equitable with the assessments of similar industrial properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding a property assessment appeal.

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by November 30, 2015, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further notice.

Further procedural steps and a subsequent pre-hearing conference were also scheduled.

The Assessment Review Board held a prehearing to consider a procedural order for appeals concerning the property assessment of 99 Sudbury Street in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board approved the procedural order as presented and directed the parties to comply with its terms and procedural dates, noting that failure to do so would constitute a default.

The Assessment Review Board approved a procedural order presented at an in-person prehearing regarding the assessment of a property in the City of Toronto.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms and procedural dates in the order, noting that failure to do so would constitute a default.

The appellant appealed property assessments for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

At a pre-hearing teleconference, the Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default of the Board's Rules for failing to provide necessary particulars to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board ordered the appellant to serve an affidavit from the farmer detailing the crops and acreage farmed by December 31, 2015, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The Board also set a schedule for the respondents to serve their Statements of Response and scheduled a full hearing.

The Assessment Review Board approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the participating parties regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years for the property located at 55 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The parties were ordered to comply with all terms and procedural dates in the attached order.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC in default of a previous order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure for failing to serve a Response to the Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve its Statement of Response by November 16, 2015, failing which it would be restricted from introducing evidence at the hearing without consent and leave.

The matter was adjourned to a further prehearing telephone conference.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed and approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties regarding property tax assessment appeals for the 2013-2015 taxation years.

The Board ordered the parties to comply with the procedural dates set out in the order, which included deadlines for discovery, witness lists, and expert reports, and scheduled a one-day hearing.

The municipality was deemed not to be actively participating as it did not serve a Statement of Response.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed and approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties regarding the property assessment of 658-668 Danforth Avenue.

The Board ordered the parties to comply with all terms and procedural dates in the order, and cancelled the scheduled prehearing event.

The appellant appealed a property assessment but failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by a previous Board order and Rule 86 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default and issued an order requiring the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date.

The Board gave notice that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeals without further notice.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default for failing to serve a Statement of Issues and both the appellant and MPAC in default for failing to file a draft Procedural Order.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The Board also set deadlines for responses and the filing of a draft Procedural Order, warning that failure to comply could result in restrictions on introducing evidence at the hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant, unbuildable waterfront lot for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $113,000 for 2013 and $105,000 for 2014 and 2015, but recommended a reduction to $90,000.

The appellant sought a reduction to approximately $32,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $68,000 based on a comparative sales analysis of buildable and unbuildable waterfront lots.

The Board found insufficient evidence to warrant a further reduction based on equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a property assessment appeal brought by Penady (Barrie) Ltd. against the City of Barrie and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The order establishes deadlines for the statement of issues, discovery, exchange of witness statements, and schedules a three-day hearing to commence on June 15, 2016.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further notice.

The Board also set a schedule for property inspection, responses, and a further pre-hearing conference.

The appellant, Mondelez Canada Inc., failed to serve a Statement of Issues in its property assessment appeals, in default of a previous Board Order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board issued an Order with Notice of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a peremptory date.

If the appellant fails to comply, the appeals will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a large pulp and paper mill in Thunder Bay for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the cost approach to value and agreed on the reproduction cost new of the buildings and yardworks.

The Board had to determine the appropriate deductions for functional obsolescence (excess capital and operating costs), physical depreciation, and external obsolescence due to the severe decline in the pulp and paper industry.

The Board rejected the income-based return on capital method proposed by the municipality and largely adopted the modified greenfield method proposed by the appellant's expert.

The Board reduced the assessed value of the property from $72,232,000 to $32,620,000 and found no further adjustment was required for equity.