Carly Stringer

The appellants requested a review of a 2021 Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for the 2019-2021 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellants argued that the Board erred in allowing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to raise issue estoppel past the 30-day notice deadline without showing exceptional circumstances, and that the previous decision did not resolve the issue of vertical equity.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the procedural rules allowed the Board to alter timelines without exceptional circumstances, that the appellants suffered no prejudice from the late notice, and that the issue of equitable value had indeed been decided in the prior proceeding.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for issue estoppel regarding the 2021 and 2022 property assessment appeals for a parking garage.

The appellant had previously settled the 2019 and 2020 appeals for the same property at a current value assessment of $2,500,000.

The Board found that the three-part test for issue estoppel was met, as the question of the property's value as of January 1, 2016, had already been finally decided between the same parties.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bypass issue estoppel, confirming the assessment at $2,500,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for nine commercial condominium units for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the valuation day should be January 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board held that the applicable valuation day is strictly prescribed by the Assessment Act and regulations as January 1, 2016, with no exceptions.

Applying the sales comparison approach, the Board rejected sales data from 2021 and 2022 as being too remote from the valuation day, and instead relied on comparable sales within 18 months of January 1, 2016.

The Board determined the current value of each unit to be $294,000 and found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $613,000, apportioned between the Residential and Farm property classes.

The appellant argued that the residential portion, consisting of bushland, should be considered 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the bushland was not actively farmed and served no ancillary farming purpose, thus it did not qualify under s. 19(5).

The Board confirmed the returned assessment value of $613,000 and found no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of its whiskey distillery, arguing that the warehouse portion should be classified in the commercial property class rather than the industrial property class.

The appellant contended that the warehouse was used exclusively for storage purposes under section 5(2)(b) of Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the warehouse was used for barrel aging whiskey, which is an active part of the manufacturing process that changes the nature and quality of the alcohol.

Therefore, the warehouse was not used exclusively for storage purposes and was properly classified in the industrial property class.

The Appellant brought a motion for leave to file a Supplementary Reply Report in its property assessment appeal, citing the sudden passing of its expert's spouse as an exceptional circumstance.

MPAC brought a separate motion to restrict the Appellant from raising new issues and leading evidence regarding functional and external obsolescence based on production volumes in its Reply Report.

The Assessment Review Board granted the Appellant's motion to file the Supplementary Reply Report due to exceptional circumstances.

However, the Board also granted MPAC's motion, finding that the Appellant failed to properly plead the issue of obsolescence based on production volumes in its Statement of Issues and that the evidence was not proper reply.

The assessed persons, Glencore and Vale, brought a motion to prevent the City of Greater Sudbury from amending its pleadings and advancing certain issues in property assessment appeals for eight mining properties.

They argued that the City was precluded from doing so based on issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, abuse of process, and admissions, relying on a previous Board decision concerning six related properties and representations made in joint procedural requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the same questions had not been decided, no unequivocal promises were made, the City was following the Board's ordered process, and no binding admissions had been made.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2015 and 2017 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial records to demonstrate an inability to pay.

Furthermore, the outstanding taxes had already been paid in full on the applicant's behalf following a court-approved settlement.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants requested an adjournment of their property assessment appeal hearing due to medical issues, caregiving responsibilities, and confusion regarding deadlines.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) opposed the request, citing the appellants' failure to comply with the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the interests of a full and fair proceeding, lack of prejudice to MPAC, and the appellants' circumstances outweighed the late timing of the request.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, arguing that his 175-acre farm was incorrectly classified in the residential property class instead of the farm property class.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect classification was a palpable error in the assessment roll.

Balancing the factors of correctness, timing, finality, and fairness, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the significant financial prejudice to the moving party and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Appellant sought tax relief for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years under s. 357(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, arguing that a 2019 zoning by-law amendment permitting multi-residential development constituted a 'change event' that made the property eligible for reclassification from Commercial to Multi-Residential.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals, finding that a change in zoning does not constitute a change in use.

As the property remained vacant until construction commenced in 2021, there was no change event during the applicable taxation years.

The property owners appealed the current value assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the base current value using the direct comparison approach, preferring the respondent's comparable sales data.

The Board applied a 17.4% negative adjustment to account for poor lot conditions, including significant year-round flooding and a weedy shoreline, consistent with a prior Board decision.

The Board declined to apply a further negative adjustment for proximity to an alleged commercial property due to insufficient evidence.

The final assessed value was reduced to $404,800.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to prevent a proposed witness from acting as an expert witness in property assessment appeals, arguing the witness had acted as an advocate for the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion as premature, noting that under Rule 14(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a representative cannot act as both an advocate and a witness in a general proceeding without leave of the Board.

Since the appellant had not yet sought leave, it was unnecessary and improper to preemptively bar the witness.

The appellant sought tax relief for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years under s. 357(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, arguing that a zoning by-law amendment permitting multi-residential development constituted a 'change event' that made the property eligible for reclassification from Commercial to Multi-Residential.

The Assessment Review Board denied the appeals, finding that a change in zoning does not equate to a change in use.

Because the property remained vacant until construction commenced in 2021, no change event occurred during the applicable taxation years.

The appellant brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow one month to serve an expert report.

The appellant's previous legal representative had failed to procure and file an expert report despite being paid to do so, which the appellant only discovered shortly before the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board found these constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 40.

Balancing the prejudice, the Board found the prejudice to the appellant of proceeding without expert evidence outweighed the delay prejudice to the respondent.

The motion was granted.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking disclosure from Cadillac Fairview and MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for the CF Lime Ridge Mall.

Cadillac Fairview opposed the motion, arguing the City failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City missed the deadlines for bringing the motion and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

Consequently, the Board denied the City's motion for disclosure.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their property, arguing that a portion used for non-commercial tree farming should be valued as farm land under section 19(5) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the limited scale and non-commercial nature of the tree farming did not qualify the land as being used only for farm purposes.

Relying on comparable sales evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board determined the current value to be $304,342, an increase from the returned assessment of $238,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required and ordered the assessment increased to $304,000.

The appellant filed a motion to amend the Schedule of Events for several property assessment appeals.

The Board ordered the matter to proceed as a written motion and required the appellant to file supporting evidence.

The appellant failed to file any additional information or motion material.

As the appellant did not comply with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure requiring evidence in support of a motion, the motion was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a pre-hearing motion to strike three documents from the Appellant's reply materials, arguing they were not disclosed in accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the rules do not provide for striking evidence, but rather govern the admission of evidence.

The Board determined that the documents were served well past the disclosure deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events and that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the late disclosure.

Consequently, the Board ordered that the three documents will not be admitted into evidence at the hearing.