Christopher Voutsinas

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020-2025 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing the 2016 current value assessment was already settled in prior appeals.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to determine if the statutory basis for MPAC's subsequent assessment changes altered the valuation day, which left the Board unable to conclude whether the same question was being raised or if the prior decisions were final for these purposes.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure in an assessment appeal concerning a 40-room hotel in Thunder Bay.

MPAC sought four categories of documents, including financial statements, sale details, capital expenditure reports, and franchise agreements.

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

The Board ordered the disclosure of financial statements from 2019 to the present and franchise agreements from 2017 to the present, finding them relevant to the property's current value given its atypical conversion from a courthouse to a hotel.

The Board denied the requests for documents relating to a 2022 share transfer and capital expenditure reports, finding the former overbroad and the latter not within the appellant's control.

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

The subject property's 2016 current value assessment had previously been settled via Minutes of Settlement in a 2023 appeal brought by the City of Brampton, resulting in a final Board decision.

The appellant argued it did not participate in the 2023 appeal and did not receive the settlement documents.

The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that the appellant was deemed to have received the mailed documents under the Board's Rules.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, emphasizing the public interest in the finality of litigation, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the 2024 property assessment for a vacant land lot.

The respondent MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeal based on issue estoppel, arguing that the 2016 current value assessment had already been decided in a 2023 appeal via Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant argued it did not participate in the 2023 appeal and did not receive the relevant correspondence.

The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that the appellant had been properly served with notices at its correct mailing address.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, prioritizing the finality of litigation, and dismissed the appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2021-2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The parties had previously settled appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years regarding the same 2016 current value assessment, resulting in final Board decisions.

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

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, noting the public interest in the finality of settlements and avoiding duplicative litigation.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

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

The owner argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation incorrectly calculated the effective lot size by failing to account for an unbuildable floodplain.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to establish a plain and obvious factual error, as determining the effective land area required interpretation and judgment rather than correcting a conspicuous factual mistake.

The requesting party, 57 Spadina GP Inc., sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Toronto, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of their single-family detached home, arguing the current value assessment of $1,398,000 was too high.

MPAC argued for a value of $1,576,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' valuation based on assessed values rather than open market sales, but also found MPAC's comparables varied widely.

Relying on MPAC's most similar comparable property and applying a 10% negative adjustment for the subject property's smaller land area and lack of a garage and finished basement, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,220,000.

The Board found no equity reduction was required.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion for disclosure of rent rolls and income and expense statements from the property owner, and Property Income and Expense Return information from MPAC, for the purpose of determining the current value of the subject multi-residential properties.

The property owner opposed the motion, arguing the requested documents from 2018-2022 were not relevant to the 2016 valuation date and that it did not maintain property-specific income statements.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the income approach to valuation and proportionate to the issues in dispute, ordering the property owner to disclose the available 2018-2020 rent rolls and combined income-expense statements.

The requesting party sought an order compelling the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Three third-party property owners objected to the disclosure without confidentiality protections.

The Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure request pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act, ordering that the documents be produced subject to MPAC's standard confidentiality agreement and that certain documents filed with the Board remain confidential and not form part of the public record.

The applicants applied to the municipality for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicants managed to pay their taxes, they did so by depleting bank balances and relying on financial contributions from their adult children, which constituted extreme poverty.

The Board ordered a $1,400 reduction in their 2023 property taxes and directed the municipality to issue a corresponding refund.

The appellant, Labatt Breweries of Canada, requested an order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties.

One owner objected but failed to provide written submissions by the deadline.

The Assessment Review Board treated the request as unopposed and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to the terms of section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by the respondent regarding property taxes for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The respondent had filed an application for cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes under s. 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing a gross or manifest error.

The municipality issued notices of decision that referenced s. 357(f) of the Act, which the respondent argued meant the application was improperly processed under s. 357.

The municipality argued the reference to s. 357(f) was a clerical error and the application was processed under s. 358.

The Assessment Review Board found that the application was indeed processed under s. 358 and the reference to s. 357(f) was merely a clerical error.

The Board denied the municipality's motion to dismiss the appeals at this interim stage and ordered that the respondent's application be dealt with as a s. 358 application at a full hearing.

The City of Mississauga appealed the property assessment of an industrial mall, arguing that the classification of two specific units should be changed to the Industrial class.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of issue estoppel or abuse of process, arguing that the property's classification was already determined in a prior 2017 appeal proceeding resolved on consent.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the classification of the two specific units was not raised or necessarily determined in the prior proceeding, and therefore the requirements for issue estoppel were not met.

The Board also found no evidence that the current appeal constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial warehouse used for car rental operations for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 taxation years.

The appellant argued the building had no value and the property should be assessed as vacant land.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's argument, preferring MPAC's cost approach valuation.

The Board determined the current value of the property and applied a 7% equity reduction, resulting in an increased assessment value compared to the returned assessment, but lower than MPAC's requested value.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessment of her farm property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, seeking a 20% to 50% nuisance reduction due to noise and activities from an abutting property.

MPAC maintained that the assessed value of $266,000, which already included a 5% nuisance reduction agreed upon in a prior reconsideration, was correct.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's market-based valuation and equity analysis over the appellant's limited evidence, confirming the assessed value and finding no further nuisance adjustment was warranted.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll regarding the residential unit count.

The Board found that the assessment corporation's overstatement of the unit count was a factual error of conspicuous magnitude.

As the motion was unopposed and there was no evidence of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals and directed the assessment corporation to be the appellant.

The appellants appealed the property classification of two midrise multifamily residential apartment towers in Ajax, arguing they should be classified as New Multi-Residential (NT) rather than Multi-Residential (MT).

The issue turned on whether the units were built pursuant to a building permit issued on or after April 20, 2017, as required by section 10(2) of O. Reg. 282/98.

While initial partial permits were issued before this date, the full building permits required to complete the units were issued after April 20, 2017.

The Assessment Review Board found that the regulation's language was clear and unambiguous, and that the units were built pursuant to permits issued after the key date.

The Board ordered the properties to be classified as New Multi-Residential (NT).

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 appellant property owner appealed the municipality's denial of a tax refund application under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for a hotel property undergoing significant renovations.

The Board found that the property met the requirements for a tax reduction for the 2021 taxation year because repairs prevented its normal use.

Rejecting the municipality's valuation-based approach, the Board accepted the appellant's cost-to-cure approach and ordered a tax refund of $39,223 based on the $3.5 million cost of repairs prorated for the 153 days the property was affected in 2021.