Carly Stringer

The appellants appealed the 2022-2025 property assessments for a property in Hamilton, including supplementary assessments made under s. 34 of the Assessment Act.

The Board raised a preliminary question of law regarding the applicable valuation day for the s. 34 assessments.

Although all parties agreed the valuation day was January 1, 2016, the Board required legal submissions to determine if this was correct in law, departing from previous Board decisions that suggested a different valuation day applied to supplementary assessments.

The Board concluded that s. 19.2 of the Act prescribes the valuation day for all assessments for a taxation year, including s. 34 supplementary assessments.

Therefore, the valuation day for the s. 34 assessments is January 1, 2016.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board under section 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 for the cancellation of his 2024 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty following a catastrophic accident.

The Board found that while the applicant's sickness reduced his household income, his income less non-discretionary expenses still left an annual surplus of at least $50,000.

The Board held that discretionary expenses cannot take precedence over the payment of property taxes and dismissed the application.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure and an order for property inspection in the context of appeals concerning the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of an apartment building.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the requests were out of time and irrelevant because the current value was not in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board granted an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances, noting the appellant had recently served an expert report providing an opinion of value.

The Board granted most of the disclosure requests and ordered the property inspection, finding them relevant to the income approach valuation and highest and best use analysis, but denied one request as overbroad.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property tax assessments for their single-family detached home, seeking a reduction in the current value from $1,658,000 to $1,478,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the value should be increased to $1,744,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the expert evidence using the Direct Comparison Approach and determined the best comparable property indicated a current value of $1,655,000.

The Board rejected the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding their assessment to sales ratio analysis unreliable.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the assessed value to $1,655,000.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the assessed values of $758,000 and $620,000 were too high due to incomplete renovations, location on a busy road, and a damaged accessory structure.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued for a value of $620,000 based on the purchase price and building permit value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's valuation, finding it lacked sufficient evidence and failed to account for the unfinished state of the renovations.

Relying on a comparable property sale, the Board reduced the current value to $447,000 for both taxation years and found no further adjustment for equity was required.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for disclosure within an assessment appeal, seeking a construction contract and a 2023 appraisal report from the appellant property owner.

The appellant opposed, arguing the documents were irrelevant to the issues of land value and equity, and that their production was disproportionate.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that building value remained in dispute and the requested documents were relevant and proportionate to the issues in the appeal.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The applicant applied to have their 2024 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's net income, which included a legal settlement, exceeded their basic living expenses, leaving sufficient funds to cover the taxes.

The applicant also had equity in their property and incurred discretionary expenses.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2024 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Board reviewed the applicant's household income, expenses, and the equity in her condominium.

The Board found that the applicant's remaining income after basic expenses was sufficient to cover the levied taxes, and that she had substantial equity in her property.

The application was dismissed.

The requesting party, Metro Ontario Inc., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose lease and income documents for several properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose lease documents relating to properties not under appeal.

The Board found that the requesting party had served notice on the owners of the other properties and that no objections were received.

The Board granted the request and ordered disclosure within 10 days.

The appellant requested an order for the disclosure of lease documents related to properties not under appeal from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the municipality, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2025 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant had previously withdrawn appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years following an agreement with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior appeals were withdrawn without a final Board decision.

The Board also held that the current appeals were not an abuse of process, as allowing them to proceed would not offend judicial economy, consistency, or finality.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that physical alterations and the loss of an anchor tenant constituted changes under s. 34 of the Assessment Act, resulting in a different valuation day and a different question to be decided.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed MPAC's motion, finding it premature to determine issue estoppel and abuse of process at the interim stage without further evidence regarding the statutory basis for the changes in the assessed values.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant opposed the motion and introduced new evidence in its reply submissions suggesting it had not resolved earlier appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years, contradicting its previous evidence.

The Assessment Review Board found that resolving the dispute over the 2017 to 2019 appeals was central to the motion but required evidentiary findings beyond the scope of the interim stage.

The Board dismissed the motion without prejudice to MPAC raising the issues at the main hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her cottage property, arguing the current value of $352,000 was too high due to poor access, steep topography, and lack of services.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation provided comparable sales evidence supporting a range of values.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the comparable sales evidence but found the specific negative characteristics of the subject property warranted a value at the very low end of the range.

The current value was reduced to $323,000.

The requesting party, Riocan Holdings (Hamilton) Inc., brought a motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose unredacted third-party property information and source documents relied upon in MPAC's expert report.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and three objected.

The Assessment Review Board found that one owner's competitive concerns were mitigated by the requesting party's confidentiality undertaking, and the other two owners failed to provide sufficient submissions regarding prejudice.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to statutory confidentiality terms.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2018 taxation years, establishing the current value assessment for the subject property as of January 1, 2016.

The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the same question was being raised, the prior decision was final, and the parties were identical.

Relying on a recent identical decision involving the same appellant, the Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel and dismissed the appeals.

The municipal property assessment corporation brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The appellants had previously appealed the assessments for the 2019 to 2022 taxation years, which were settled and finalized by Board decisions.

The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the current value assessment for the subject properties as of January 1, 2016, had already been decided between the same parties.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel to prevent relitigation and dismissed the appeals.