Caroline King

The applicant requested a review of a Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant argued the Member erred in calculating his income and violated procedural fairness by asking personal questions.

The Vice-Chair found that while the Member erred in characterizing loans and credit card advances as income, the error did not change the outcome because the applicant still had sufficient funds to pay the taxes.

The Vice-Chair also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the personal questions were necessary to apply the legal test.

The request to review was denied.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment for 2019 and the assessed value of their seasonal waterfront property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellants argued for a valuation based on adjusted assessed values of nearby properties, while MPAC relied on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' approach critically flawed and adopted the direct comparison approach.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $468,000 for 2020 and 2021, and the 2019 supplemental assessment to be $395,000.

No reduction for equity was made.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their semi-detached residential property, which featured an unusually large lot size.

MPAC assessed the property by notionally dividing it into two parts: the house with a standard lot size, and the remaining excess land valued as vacant lots.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's methodology, finding it unsupported by market evidence for large residential lots.

Applying a direct sales comparison approach and bracketing the property between inferior and superior comparable sales, the Board reduced the assessed value from $716,000 to $585,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Appellant appealed the property assessment for a warehouse property in West Nipissing.

The Appellant failed to attend the scheduled video hearing and did not file any documentary evidence in advance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Appellant had a reasonable opportunity to participate, having received proper notice.

The Board dismissed the appeals due to non-attendance and abandonment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-residential cooperative housing building for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The parties reached a settlement agreement during the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the assessed value reduced from $30,079,000 to $28,500,000 on consent.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The matter was appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring the submission of evidence by a specified date and subsequently requested an adjournment at the merit hearing.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-compliance with the procedural order and the resulting prejudice to the municipality.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Via Rail Canada.

MPAC argued the appeals were withdrawn in error because proper notice was not provided to all parties and that procedural fairness required reinstatement to allow MPAC to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that MPAC had received actual notice of the withdrawal before it was processed, no notice of a higher assessment had been served prior to the withdrawal, and no hearing events had commenced.

The Board concluded the appeals were not withdrawn in error and procedural fairness did not require their reinstatement.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The appellant had intended to withdraw appeals for the 2017 taxation year but mistakenly withdrew the 2016 appeals.

Although the complete request for reinstatement was filed outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 122, the Board found the delay was partly due to the Board's own delay in notifying the appellant of a missing form.

Finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error and that no other parties would be prejudiced, the Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals.

Ryerson University requested the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that was inadvertently withdrawn by its counsel.

The request was filed 46 days after the withdrawal, outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the delay was caused by the parties awaiting a reassessment from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to finalize a settlement.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, noting the error was clerical and no other parties would be prejudiced.

The appeal was reinstated.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of property tax assessment appeals that were dismissed after it failed to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant provided uncontradicted evidence that it did not receive notice of the hearing event, which was sent by regular mail.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to appear through no fault of its own and that natural justice required the appeals to be reinstated.

The request was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The applicant applied for a refund of his 2018 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The City argued the applicant had equity in his property and a small monthly surplus.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicant was unable to pay his taxes due to his sickness, which prevented him from working and limited his income to ODSP.

The Board ordered a full refund of the $2,325.35 in property taxes paid.

The requester sought to reinstate two property tax appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the withdrawal was a good faith error made while attempting to withdraw other settled appeals.

As the request met the requirements of Rule 122, was filed within 30 days, and was unopposed by the respondents, the Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals.

The requester sought to reinstate a property assessment appeal that its legal representative had withdrawn without prior client instructions.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request under Rule 122.

The Board found that while the withdrawal was an error, it was not a clerical error but rather a failure of the representative to obtain instructions.

The Board held that it must be able to rely on the representations of legal representatives, and going behind those representations would be unreasonable and problematic.

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed by the Assessment Review Board for non-compliance with Rule 69.

The parties had executed Minutes of Settlement, and MPAC had agreed to file them with the Board but failed to do so in error.

The Board found that the requester met the requirements of Rule 122(a) for reinstatement, as the request was timely, made by a party to the appeals, and the dismissal was due to an error not caused by the requester.

The appeals were reinstated and the agreed-upon Minutes of Settlement were applied.

The requester sought an order to reinstate two property tax appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The request was filed within 30 days of the withdrawal, supported by an affidavit explaining the good faith error made while attempting to withdraw other settled appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requirements of Rule 122 were met and, considering principles of fairness and lack of opposition, granted the request to reinstate the appeals.

The requester, Milord Realty Inc., sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The requester's representative had mistakenly withdrawn the section 32 appeals instead of the section 40 appeals.

The Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was filed within 30 days and the withdrawal was due to a clerical error.

The Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals, noting no prejudice to other parties.

The applicant sought property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act due to sickness or extreme poverty.

Following the death of his wife, the applicant requested a third adjournment to gather required financial documentation.

The Assessment Review Board granted the adjournment but issued an interim procedural order detailing the specific documentation required to prove the application and warning that further adjournments would not be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their residential property for the 2016 taxation year, but their Request for Reconsideration was for the 2017 taxation year.

The respondent filed an Expedited Board Direction Form requesting clarification.

At the preliminary hearing, the appellants requested to amend the appeal to the 2017 taxation year, and the respondent consented.

The Board granted the amendment and directed the Registrar to assign a Commencement Date with a new Schedule of Events.

The complainant appealed the Town of Milton's denial of vacancy rebate applications for a commercial property for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.

In a prior decision, the Assessment Review Board found that the property, which contained dental equipment affixed to the building, was vacant and capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

In this final decision, the Board ordered the Town to pay the uncontested vacancy rebate amounts of $5,055.49 for 2014 and $2,949.41 for 2015.