Carly Stringer

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 appealed the assessments for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, which were settled and finalized by a Board decision.

The Board found that the current appeals raised the exact same question—the current value assessment of the subject property as of January 1, 2016—and that the previous decision was final and involved the same parties.

Finding no injustice in applying the doctrine, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

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 appealed the 2017 to 2019 assessments for the same property, which were settled and finalized by the Board.

The Board found that the current appeals sought to relitigate the same issue—the current value assessment of the property as of January 1, 2016.

Concluding that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that no injustice would result, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The moving party (assessed person) brought a motion to prohibit the appellant municipality from raising the tax liability of two surge tanks as an issue in the assessment appeals, arguing the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine tax exemptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality was not asking for a determination on tax exemption, but rather asking the Board to ascribe a value to the surge tanks as part of the property's current value, which is within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also denied the moving party's request to file a supplementary expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The appellant, Avondale Stores Limited, brought a motion for disclosure of various documents and data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the subject property and several comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board partially granted the motion, ordering MPAC to disclose unredacted portions of its expert report and statement of response, specific rent rolls, and sales investigation sheets for properties relied upon by MPAC.

The Board denied requests for financial statements, generalized land attribute data, inspection notes, and building permits, finding them either irrelevant or disproportionate to the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2021 to 2024 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day using the direct comparison approach, relying on the respondent's comparable sales evidence.

The Board found the current value to be $992,000.

Applying an assessment to sales ratio of 0.98, the Board ordered an equitable reduction, resulting in a final assessment of $972,000 for the 2024 taxation year and $653,000 for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a 2.51-acre vacant industrial property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

The property was purchased for $850,000 in 2016, but the appellant later discovered a municipal bylaw prohibited road access, rendering the land undevelopable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the purchase price did not reflect a discount for this restriction, as the appellant was unaware of it.

The Board applied a 90% downward adjustment to the time-adjusted sale price, reducing the current value to $66,800.

The request for an equitable adjustment was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $384,000 for a condominium apartment for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, arguing for a reduction to $333,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property, establishing a current value of $434,000.

Applying an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 based on the respondent's equity analysis, the Board reduced the current value to $390,000 to ensure equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The Board ordered the assessment increased to $390,000.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to serve supplementary expert reports and an amended Statement of Response past the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The motion was unopposed by the other parties.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that late service was an appropriate consequence for non-compliance given the lack of prejudice and the promptness of the motion.

The Board also confirmed that the City is permitted to adduce evidence regarding the income approach to value at the hearing.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a newly constructed office complex in Toronto, arguing that the partial assessment of the property at 80% of its full value was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient convincing evidence that the comparison properties were at the same stage of development as the subject property on the valuation date.

The Board also rejected the appellants' expert's reliance on only a portion of the assessed values of mixed-use comparison properties.

The appeal for an equitable reduction was dismissed.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, resulting in a Board decision establishing the current value as of January 1, 2016.

The Board found that the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the same question (value as of January 1, 2016) was decided in a final decision involving the same parties.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the application of issue estoppel, finding no real injustice to the appellant, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant property owner appealed the City's denial of its application for municipal tax relief for the 2021 taxation year under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that renovations prevented the normal use of its hotel property for the entire year.

While the Assessment Review Board found that renovations did prevent normal use for at least three months, it dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as invoices, tax bills, or proof of taxes paid, to substantiate the requested refund amount.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property operating as an automotive recycling business for the 2020-2023 taxation years, seeking a reduction in the current value assessment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) responded, arguing for an increase in the assessed value based on the cost approach and a change in classification to entirely commercial.

The Assessment Review Board found that a hydro corridor on the property did not negatively impact its value and accepted MPAC's expert evidence on land value.

The Board ordered the assessed value increased from $723,000 to $1,126,000, confirmed the supplementary assessment of $118,000, denied any equitable adjustment, and changed the property classification to Commercial.

The requesting parties sought an order for MPAC to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal, pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and while four objected, only one provided submissions, which the Board found did not justify withholding disclosure.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents.

The appellants requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose sales investigation sheets for 14 properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and none objected.

The Board found the requested documents relevant and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the documents subject to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no parties to the appeal opposed the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered the disclosure of the requested documents within 20 days.

Following an interim decision regarding the assessment of two properties in Brampton, the parties conferred and reached an agreement on the current values and apportionments for the taxation years under appeal.

The Assessment Review Board ordered that the current values and apportionments be revised in accordance with the parties' agreement, as set out in the attached schedules.

The appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of two witness statements past the deadline in the Schedule of Events for its property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found no exceptional circumstances to alter the Schedule of Events under Rule 40, as the respondent had previously challenged the validity of the 2021 sale in its pleadings.

However, applying Rule 7 regarding non-compliance, the Board permitted the late filing and testimony of the proposed factual witnesses, finding no prejudice to the respondent since a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to amend its pleadings and expert report in response.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for disclosure in the context of property assessment appeals concerning a distribution centre tenanted by Amazon.

The City sought various documents, including construction costs, lease agreements, and operating expenses, to support its cost and income valuation approaches.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality.

The Board granted the requests for construction costs, the property's purchase agreement, leases, and inspection photographs, finding them relevant and proportionate.

However, the Board denied the requests for operating expenses and recoverable charges, as they were not limited to a particular timeframe and were therefore overbroad.