Carly Stringer

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a highway service plaza for the 2019-2023 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's expert evidence due to inconsistencies and reliance on incomparable sales.

The Board accepted the respondent's expert evidence, which relied on the 2013 sale of the subject property as vacant land, and apportioned the land value based on commercial, excess, and farm uses.

The Board found no equitable adjustment was warranted and ordered the assessment increased to $8,069,000 for 2019-2021 and $8,223,000 for 2022-2023.

Appeals and cross-appeals were brought regarding the property assessments of a special purpose food processing facility (slaughterhouse and poultry processing plant) for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the properties using the Cost Approach.

The Board established a land rate of $401,101.61 per acre for non-farmed land, relying on comparable sales of partially serviced industrial lands.

For improvements, the Board preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding a reproduction cost new of $32,875,599 with a 14% functional obsolescence rate due to the piecemeal construction of the facility.

The Board declined to apply an equitable adjustment, finding insufficient evidence that the assessment was inequitable compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal its property assessments for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll.

The building on the subject property had been partially demolished in 2014, reducing its size from 20,998 square feet to 3,500 square feet, but MPAC continued to assess the property based on the original size.

The Assessment Review Board found this to be a palpable error of conspicuous magnitude.

Balancing the prejudice to the parties, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals and directed MPAC to be the appellant.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The appellants argued that the value of the subject property, a shopping mall, should be reduced due to the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its 'state and condition'.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the 'state and condition' paradigm, adopting previous jurisprudence that the Assessment Act provides for a single valuation day (January 1, 2016) for the taxation years in question.

The Board found that the issue of the property's current value as of January 1, 2016, had already been finally decided between the same parties in a previous settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

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

The City of Hamilton requested an order compelling the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to three comparable properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the comparable 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.

The requester sought a review of a Board decision that found his property taxes for 2022 were $0, despite determining he was unable to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The requester and the municipality both confirmed the taxes levied were actually $2,111.44.

The Board found the hearing member made a significant error of fact and varied the decision to order a refund of $2,111.44.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2009 to 2022 taxation years, alleging a palpable error because the property was assessed as having a basement when it had been filled in.

The Assessment Review Board found that a palpable error existed for the 2010 to 2021 taxation years.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for bringing appeals, noting the property owner's failure to explain its delay and its own conduct in causally contributing to the error.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion for disclosure of lease documents and correspondence from the appellant, Canuck Properties Ltd., in a property assessment appeal.

The City argued the documents were relevant to its position that the appellant was estopped from raising certain issues already determined in earlier appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely as it was brought before the final disclosure deadline.

The Board ordered the disclosure of the lease documents, finding them relevant to the issue estoppel argument and proportionate to the dispute.

However, the Board denied the request for correspondence, finding it overbroad and disproportionate.

The appellant, MGE Niagara Entertainment Inc., brought a motion requesting an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose the financial statements of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) and the calculations used to determine gross and net income in the Discounted Cash Flow analysis.

MPAC took no position but noted the information was protected under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, ordering MPAC to disclose the requested information subject to terms imposed under s. 53(5) of the Act, and suspended the schedule of events for 45 days.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll.

The owner provided uncontested evidence that MPAC mistakenly assessed the second floor of a building as fully constructed and occupied, when it was actually an unfinished, unusable construction zone.

The Assessment Review Board found this to be a palpable error of conspicuous magnitude.

Given the consent of MPAC and lack of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals and directed MPAC to be the appellant.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding a feed mill and grain silos.

The Assessment Review Board applied the framework from a recent decision, finding that assessing unusable portions of the feed mill as fully operational and assessing eight non-existent silos constituted palpable errors.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the prejudice to the property owner and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of eight mining properties.

The City sought various documents related to MPAC's land value analysis and cost rates under the Cost Approach valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality under Rule 45.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose specific sales verification questionnaires and a legible version of its 2016 Automated Cost Systems rates, subject to redactions under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Board denied several other requests as being overly broad, disproportionate, or relating to documents not in MPAC's possession.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for 835 and 839 Yonge Street.

Following an interim decision that increased the current value of the property to $106,262,000, the parties agreed on the apportionment of this value between the relevant roll numbers.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the agreed-upon apportionment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals because the appellants failed to serve expert reports and file a Statement of Issues and documentary evidence by the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appellants did not provide an explanation for their non-compliance or seek an extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure and that the circumstances weighed heavily in favour of dismissal.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Requestor sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the $346,000 assessment of their commercial condominium unit in the Pacific Mall.

The Requestor argued the Board violated procedural fairness by preventing screen sharing and limiting time, and made errors of fact regarding the property's frontage and value.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no procedural unfairness as the Requestor's evidence was filed and considered.

The Board also found no significant errors of fact or law, noting the Hearing Member reasonably relied on the respondent's sales evidence and properly declined to qualify the self-represented Requestor as an expert witness due to a lack of impartiality.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Canadian Tire retail store and gas bar in Toronto for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed the current use was not the highest and best use (HABU), but disagreed on the appropriate degree of redevelopment.

The appellant argued the HABU should be based on as-of-right zoning, valuing the property at $30,000,000.

The respondent MPAC argued the HABU was a mixed-use development with a higher density requiring rezoning, valuing the property at over $110,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that a rezoning to permit a Floor Space Index of 6.5 was reasonably probable, satisfying the legal permissibility test.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $106,262,000 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property tax assessments for a residential townhouse in Collingwood, originally assessed at $366,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value as of January 1, 2016, was $378,000 based on comparable sales evidence provided by MPAC.

The Board then applied a 15% equitable reduction, consistent with a neighbourhood-wide market adjustment, resulting in a final assessed value of $321,000.

The appellant brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking to alter the Schedule of Events to allow for the late filing of an expert report.

The appellant argued that its failure to understand the Board's requirements constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Board found that the appellant had legal representation at the time the deadline passed and for months thereafter, and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The motion was denied as no exceptional circumstances were established.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property assessments for a residential property in Mississauga, arguing the assessment of $2,973,000 (2022) and $2,950,000 (2023) was too high.

The Board found the residence was uninhabitable and should be valued as vacant residential land.

Rejecting both MPAC's and the appellant's proposed valuation methods, the Board relied on the sales of a vacant lot across the street to determine a current value of $1,194,990.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced to $1,194,990.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the property tax assessments of 16 service units located in a mixed-use hotel and residential condominium building.

The appellant argued the units were common elements and should be assessed at a nominal value, while the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed them as 'hotel units' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the service units met the statutory definition of 'hotel units' because they were designated as units, used as part of the hotel operations to maintain mechanical systems, and a statutory declaration had been filed by the previous owner.

The Board confirmed the returned assessments based on the pro forma income capitalization approach.