Carly Stringer

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals, either as of right under Rule 27 or with leave under Rule 29.

The City of Vaughan and MPAC opposed the withdrawal because the City had issued a Notice of Higher Assessment.

The City also brought a motion for disclosure of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the Appellant's motion to withdraw, finding that the City's notice was valid and precluded withdrawal as of right, and that the Appellant failed to establish grounds for leave to withdraw.

The Board granted the City's motion for disclosure, finding the Agreement of Purchase and Sale relevant to the property's current value and its disclosure proportionate.

The appellant appealed its property tax assessment for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, seeking a vacant unit rebate under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Following an interim decision that found portions of the property eligible for the rebate, the parties reached an agreement on the quantum.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision ordering the respondent municipality to rebate the agreed amounts of $11,385.26 for 2015 and $8,317.35 for 2016.

The appellant appealed the effective date of a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

The appellant argued the effective date should be July 3, 2017, when the facility went 'live' and began shipping inventory.

The respondent MPAC argued the effective date should be no later than February 1, 2017, when the municipality certified the building as suitable for occupancy.

The Board found that under s. 34(1)(a) of the Assessment Act, the test is when the building 'commences to be used for any purpose', not when it is fully operational or used for its ultimate intended purpose.

The Board concluded the building was used for any purpose by February 1, 2017, and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.

The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.

While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The City of Ottawa and MPAC opposed the motion because the City had previously filed a Notice of Higher Assessment (NOHA).

The Board found that the City's NOHA was properly filed and that the Board had committed a clerical error in initially processing the Appellant's withdrawal.

The Board refused the request to withdraw the appeals and ordered an amended schedule of events to proceed with the matter.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The City of Ottawa and MPAC opposed the motion because the City had previously delivered a Notice of Higher Assessment (NOHA).

The Appellant argued the NOHA was improperly served and filed, breaching several Board Rules.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City properly served the NOHA on the Appellant by mail in accordance with the Rules, precluding an automatic withdrawal under Rule 72.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to permit the withdrawal under Rule 73, finding no prejudice to the Appellant that would justify ignoring the City's validly issued NOHA.

The motion to withdraw was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issue by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events and ignored multiple warnings from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant breached the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Given the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the resulting prejudice to MPAC, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Brampton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals because the appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appeals were designated as 'Legacy Appeals', which are subject to accelerated timelines and an expedited dismissal process for non-compliance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to comply with the deadline and that its explanation of inadvertence and misunderstanding was unsatisfactory.

Weighing the prejudice to both parties and the need to strictly enforce the Rules for Legacy Appeals, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant applied for property tax rebates for its brick manufacturing facility under sections 357 and 364 of the Municipal Act for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the section 357 appeal, finding that the kilns were shut down primarily due to economic factors rather than repairs or renovations.

However, the Board allowed the section 364 appeals, finding that the specified kilns, holding rooms, and track were eligible for a vacant unit rebate as they were clearly delineated and unused for at least 90 consecutive days.

The parties were directed to confer on the quantum of the rebate.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel applied to an appeal of a property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The appellant had previously appealed the assessment for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, which resulted in a Board decision determining the current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The Board found that the three criteria for issue estoppel were met: the same question was decided, the previous decision was final, and the parties were the same.

Finding no new evidence or change in circumstances to justify declining to apply issue estoppel, the Board granted the motion and confirmed the assessment at $290,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting leave to file reply evidence regarding equity issues raised by the appellant, Shoppers Drug Mart.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found the reply evidence necessary and appropriate, granting MPAC until January 8, 2021, to serve and file its reply evidence and amending the Schedule of Events accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's current value assessment of $377,000 for a 50-acre vacant property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The respondent's expert provided evidence using a direct comparison approach, adjusting for acreage and building costs.

The appellant challenged the transparency of the assessment process but did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the valuation or establish the need for an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent's expert evidence and confirmed the current value assessment at $377,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel prevented the appellant from appealing the current value assessment of its property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC argued the issues were already decided in a 2015 Board decision concerning the same property for the 2006-2012 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the first part of the issue estoppel test was not met because determining the correct current value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date is not the same question as determining the value for the 2005 and 2008 valuation dates.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years due to the Appellants' failure to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

The Appellants had obtained an extension from MPAC but failed to obtain consent from the City.

The Board found that while the Appellants failed to comply with the Rules, the breach had been cured by the subsequent filing of the Statement of Issues and an expert report.

Given the lack of overwhelming prejudice to the City and the severe consequences of dismissal, the Board denied the motion to dismiss.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) because it failed to file the request within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via tax bills.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to grant an extension of time, finding that the moving party acted reasonably in the circumstances, and that principles of fairness and lack of prejudice weighed in favour of allowing the appeal to proceed.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment under Rule 26 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a) because there was no evidence the appeal was mailed within the statutory timeframe.

The Board also found the moving party failed to meet the three-part test under Rule 26(b), as she did not claim she failed to receive the Notice of Assessment and did not provide evidence of when she became aware of the assessment.

The motion for a late appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in September 2019, brought a motion to file a late appeal of the 2019 property assessment.

The property had been assessed at commercial rates, but the moving party claimed it was zoned agricultural.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a) or (b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving party was not entitled to the original notice of assessment, failed to prove it did not receive the notice, and did not file the late appeal application within 30 days of becoming aware of the issue.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file late appeals for property assessments from 1996 to 2016, arguing there was a palpable error because the property was assessed as having an in-ground swimming pool when it did not.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-existence of the pool was a palpable error.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time to appeal, noting that the moving party had access to the property profile since at least 2012 and failed to review it.

The motion was dismissed.

The property owner appealed its property tax assessment, arguing the property should be classified as tax-exempt under s. 3(1)12 iii. of the Assessment Act.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that questions of exemption from taxation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court under s. 46 of the Act, whereas the Board's jurisdiction is limited to matters such as incorrect classification.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a 90-acre dual-use farm with a purpose-built canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a sales comparison approach and a significantly lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, checked against available market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.