Dan Weagant is a member at the Assessment Review Board with 252 decisions on record from 2015 to 2025. Key areas include property tax assessment, administrative law, other tribunals.

What tribunal does Dan Weagant sit on?

Dan Weagant sits on the Assessment Review Board.

What areas of law does Dan Weagant decide?

Dan Weagant's most common areas include Property Tax Assessment (252 decisions), Administrative Law (42 decisions), Other Tribunals (7 decisions). Dan Weagant has handled 252 decisions across 3 areas.

How many decisions has Dan Weagant made?

Dan Weagant has 252 decisions on record from 2015 to 2025.

Who frequently appears before Dan Weagant?

Representatives who frequently appear before Dan Weagant include Sean Doyle, Sean Doyle, William Somerville.

/Adjudicator

minicounsel

Dan Weagant — Member

Property Tax Assessment

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Dan Weagant

Member·Assessment Review Board·Since 2015

252

cases · 11 yrs · OARB

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Member· 209Member· 27Member· 11MEMBER· 3MEMBER· 1MEMBER· 1

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardFeb 17, 2022

Property assessment increased to $2,473,000 after determining current value and applying a 7% equity reduction.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property in Toronto for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had returned an assessment of $2,299,000, but amended its opinion of current value to $2,666,500 prior to the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales data and determined the current value of the property to be $2,659,000.

On consent of the parties, the Board applied a 7% equity reduction, resulting in a final assessment of $2,473,000.

The assessment was ordered increased accordingly.

Carole Ogus v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 and City of Toronto, 2022 CanLII 12735

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardFeb 14, 2022

Property assessment reduced to $0 prior to the addition of omitted assessments.

The appellant appealed the 2014 property assessment of a residential property.

The issue was the current value of the property prior to the addition of omitted assessments for renovations.

The Board found that the best evidence of value was an appraisal provided by the appellant, adjusted for time, resulting in a value of $176,000.

Since the omitted assessments applied by MPAC also totaled $176,000, the Board determined that the current value of the property before the omitted assessments was $0.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

Guiseppe Macera v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18 and City of Niagara Falls, 2022 CanLII 12779

Marc Kemerer

115 cases2016–2026

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardFeb 4, 2022

Property assessment reduced to $1,638,000 based on the average of two comparable sales.

The appellants appealed the returned value of their residential property for the 2021 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $1,918,000 and later sought an increase to $2,046,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,300,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable properties presented by both parties, rejecting several due to differences in location, age, and size.

By averaging the time-adjusted sale prices of the two most comparable properties, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $1,638,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

Syed Raza and Sadia Raza v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2022 CanLII 7582

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardFeb 1, 2022

Property assessment reduced to $3,888,000 based on comparable sales; equity reduction denied.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the returned assessment of $4,295,000 was too high and inequitable.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $3,888,000 by analyzing time-adjusted sale prices of comparable corner lots in the vicinity.

The Board further found that no equity reduction was necessary, as the most similar properties were assessed at or above their respective current values.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

Wendy Moore v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2022 CanLII 7587

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardJan 18, 2022

Property tax relief application dismissed as applicants had sufficient assets to pay taxes.

The Applicants applied to the City of Hamilton to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicants' necessary household expenses exceeded their income, their total assets at the end of the year significantly exceeded their shortfall.

The Board concluded that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2020 and dismissed the application.

U.K. and N.S. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19 and City of Hamilton, 2022 CanLII 3270

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardJan 14, 2022

Property assessment reduced to $1,322,000 after determining current value and applying an equity adjustment factor.

The appellants appealed the 2021 property assessment of their custom-built single-family dwelling in Newmarket, which was returned at $1,543,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,437,000 based on the time-adjusted sale price of a comparable property.

The Board then applied an agreed-upon equity adjustment factor of 0.92 to ensure the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The final assessment was reduced to $1,322,000.

O’Malley v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2022 CanLII 1604

Industrial property assessment reduced based on time-adjusted sale price of the subject property.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value for 2017-2020 was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself, determining a value of $5,615,000.

For the 2021 taxation year, following the severance and sale of two parcels of land, the Board reduced the assessment to $3,706,000.

The Board also determined the correct classification and apportionment among industrial, industrial excess land, and commercial classes, and found no evidence to support an equity reduction.

Firestone Textiles Company v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2022 CanLII 1615

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardOct 22, 2021

Property taxes cancelled as applicant demonstrated inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant applied to the Township of Laird to have his 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Township delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant's necessary household expenses exceeded his income, which consisted primarily of a disability pension and government supports.

The Board concluded the applicant was unable to pay the taxes due to sickness and ordered the 2020 property taxes in the amount of $2,020.74 cancelled.

P.S. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 31, 2021 CanLII 105813

R. Shoom

2 cases2021–2021

R. Minster

3 cases2011–2021

J. Cowan

7 cases2015–2021

J. Barlow

2 cases2021–2021

D. Rosman

2 cases2021–2021

D. Mitchell

19 cases2014–2024

C. Kuehl

4 cases2012–2023

Vincent Stabile

OARB0 cases2015–2021

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardOct 19, 2021

Board approves parties' agreed revised property assessments and classifications for gravel pits following interim decision.

The Assessment Review Board issued an amended decision to correct minor errors in its final decision regarding the property assessment of several gravel pits.

Following an interim decision, the parties agreed on revised assessments, classifications, and apportionments for the taxation years 2017 to 2021.

The Board accepted the parties' interpretation of the interim decision, which included classifying specific portions of source ponds and extraction areas as industrial or residential.

The Board ordered that the representative properties be classified and assessed in accordance with the agreed-upon schedules.

County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 22, 2021 CanLII 101834

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardSep 15, 2021

Property tax relief application dismissed as applicant's income exceeded basic household expenses.

The Applicant applied to the City of London for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2020 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's average monthly income exceeded her basic household expenses by $828.

Consequently, the Board determined that the Applicant was able to pay the $3,613.33 in property taxes levied in 2020 and dismissed the application.

M.I. and J.J.K. (Estate) v. City of London, 2021 CanLII 88707

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardSep 15, 2021

Supplementary assessment of newly constructed dwelling reduced to $2,060,000 based on comparable sales analysis.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their newly constructed single-family dwelling.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,224,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $1,800,000 and $1,850,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sale supported a lower value due to differences in lot size and quality of construction.

The Board reduced the supplementary assessment, resulting in a total current value of $2,060,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

No equity reduction was found to be necessary.

Harry Battu and Ramandeep Battu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 88754

Jennifer Boyczuk

19 cases2016–2023

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardSep 1, 2021

Property tax relief application dismissed as applicants had sufficient financial resources to pay.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded on the basis of inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient household income and bank balances to meet their financial obligations, including the payment of the 2020 property taxes.

As the applicants were able to pay their taxes, the application was dismissed.

M.N. and N.K. v. City of Toronto, 2021 CanLII 83467

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardAug 24, 2021

Property taxes reduced by $1,216.41 due to applicants' extreme poverty and inability to pay in full.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction of their 2020 property taxes due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants' necessary household expenses were slightly less than their total household income, leaving them with $1,896 available to pay property taxes.

The Board concluded the applicants were in a state of extreme poverty and ordered their 2020 property taxes reduced by $1,216.41.

V.R. and N.P.R. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 80771

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardAug 13, 2021

Application for property tax cancellation dismissed as the applicants had sufficient funds to pay.

The applicants applied to the municipality to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board, acting under delegated authority, reviewed the applicants' financial evidence.

The Board found that the applicants had sufficient funds available at the end of 2020 to cover the property taxes levied, even after accounting for necessary household expenses.

Consequently, the Board determined the applicants were able to pay their property taxes and dismissed the application.

A.K.M.F and N.A. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 74741

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardJul 16, 2021

Property taxes reduced due to extreme poverty after applicants demonstrated inability to pay in full.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants' necessary household expenses were slightly less than their total household income, leaving them with $1,896 available to pay property taxes.

The Board concluded that the applicants were in a state of extreme poverty and ordered their 2020 property taxes reduced from $3,112.41 to $1,896.

V.R. and N.P.R. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 63314

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardJun 21, 2021

Board ordered appellants to produce photographic evidence of property interior due to COVID-19 inspection restrictions.

The appellants appealed the property assessment returned by MPAC for the subject property.

During the hearing, it became clear that MPAC could not fully inspect the property due to COVID-19 restrictions.

On consent, the Assessment Review Board ordered the appellants to provide a comprehensive photographic record of each room in the dwelling to MPAC and the Board, and scheduled a continuation of the hearing by telephone conference.

Harry Battu and Ramandeep Kaur Battu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 56407

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardJun 11, 2021

Property assessment reduced to $521,000 due to the negative impact of an adjacent commercial lodge.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a lakefront property on Lake Temagami for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to the proximity of a commercial lodge and the resulting tourist traffic across the property.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's testimony convincing and adjusted the current value to $521,000 based on comparable sales, rejecting the respondent's higher valuation.

No further reduction was made for equitable assessment.

Paul Forsyth v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 51699

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardMay 10, 2021

Property assessment reduced; unique restrictions on Pine Lake warranted using a comparable property on the same lake.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their waterfront property on Pine Lake for the 2017-2021 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $869,000 for 2017, later reduced to $765,000, plus a $33,000 omitted assessment for a detached garage.

The appellants argued the value should be lower due to restrictions on Pine Lake caused by a nearby Provincial Park.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that Pine Lake's unique restrictions required using a comparable property on the same lake, resulting in a base current value of $703,000, plus the $33,000 garage assessment for later years.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity.

Latour v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 41884

R. Shoom

2 cases2021–2021

R. Minster

3 cases2011–2021

J. Cowan

7 cases2015–2021

J. Barlow

2 cases2021–2021

D. Rosman

2 cases2021–2021

D. Mitchell

19 cases2014–2024

C. Kuehl

4 cases2012–2023

Vincent Stabile

OARB0 cases2015–2021

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardMar 29, 2021

Board determines classification and sets current value of gravel pit lands at $15,080 per acre.

The County of Wellington appealed the property tax assessments of six licensed gravel pits, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) undervalued the properties and incorrectly classified them.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct interpretation of section 6(2) of O. Reg. 282/98, finding that specific portions of the licensed areas actively used for or in connection with extraction, processing, and related activities fall into the Industrial property class, while the remainder defaults to the Residential or Farm class.

Applying the cost approach, the Board rejected the County's proposed valuation based on general industrial land and MPAC's formula based on marginal farmland, instead relying on a recent sale of a licensed gravel pit to determine a current value of $15,080 per acre for the land portion.

The Board found no evidence to warrant a reduction for equitable assessment.

County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 22, 2021 CanLII 26723

Dan Weagant

OARB0 cases2015–2025

OARBAssessment Review BoardMar 24, 2021

Property assessment reduced to $818,000 based on comparable sales analysis.

The appellant appealed the 2020 current value assessment of their single-family bungalow property, which was assessed at $997,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $562,290 based on comparable properties and lot shape restrictions.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation proposed a value of $932,635 based on two comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable properties provided by both parties, disregarding those without recent sales or with significant differences.

Based on the two best comparable sales, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $818,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment.

Bernard Cassar v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 23937

Page 4 of 13 (252 cases)

assisted the Applicant

A.E.-G.Agent
1 appearance

for 1490804 Ontario Limited and Angie Cormpilas

Angie CormpilasSelf-represented
1 appearance

for 2320480 Ontario Limited

Geoff WattsAgent
1 appearance

for 2440781 Ontario Limited

Akbar BapooAgent
1 appearance

for 3022056 Canada Inc.

Paul GrosmanCounsel
1 appearance

for 409315 Ontario Ltd.

William John BakerAgent
1 appearance

for 440 Elizabeth Street Holding and 440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd.

Andrew AttardAgent
1 appearance
Daniel AttardAgent
1 appearance

for 625041 Ontario Limited

Peter StavrouCounsel
1 appearance

for 8768013 Canada Ltd.

Erin PicklesAgent
2 appearances
Jeff PicklesAgent
2 appearances
Ratha HalfordAgent
1 appearance

for Aipco Inc.

Benjamin FriedSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Amalie Holdings Limited

Paul GrosmanAgent
1 appearance

for Amos Weber and Betsy Hoover Weber

Abram WeberAgent
1 appearance

for Bell Canada

Daniel RosmanCounsel
1 appearance
Richard MinsterCounsel
1 appearance

for Bryfam Enterprises Inc.

Tammy BrysonAgent
1 appearance
Tim BrysonAgent
1 appearance

for Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc.

Mark BlidnerCounsel
1 appearance

for City of Burlington

Paul LacelleAgent
1 appearance
P. LacelleAgent
1 appearance

for City of Greater Sudbury

Dan RosmanCounsel
2 appearances
Richard MinsterCounsel
2 appearances

for City of Hamilton

John O’KaneAgent
2 appearances

for City of London

Brian ShimlaAgent
2 appearances

for City of Niagara Falls

John O’KaneCounsel
1 appearance

for City of Ottawa

Guy TudinoAgent
1 appearance

for City of Thunder Bay

Guy TudinoCounsel
1 appearance

for City of Woodstock (observing only)

Diane CampbellAgent
1 appearance

for CRH Canada Inc.

D. RosmanCounsel
2 appearances
R. MinsterCounsel
2 appearances

for Dennis Abram Driedger, Karen Anne Driedger, and A. Driedger Farms Inc.

Dennis DriedgerSelf-represented
1 appearance

for D. Murray Ventures Inc.

Patrick PrendergastAgent
1 appearance

for EMD Canada Acquisition Co.

Bob PattersonAgent
1 appearance

for Fellowship Wilderness Camp

Stu BurkholderAgent
1 appearance

for Firestone Textiles Company

Drew SamuelsAgent
1 appearance

for Glencore Canada Corporation

Kathleen PooleCounsel
1 appearance
Karina WongCounsel
1 appearance

for Glencore Canada Corporation (formerly Xstrata Canada Corporation)

Kathleen PooleCounsel
1 appearance
Karina WongCounsel
1 appearance

for Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Thomas W. BarlowCounsel
1 appearance

for H.A. and A.S.M.

H.A.Self-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Ken RaySelf-represented
1 appearance

for Host Hospitality Inc.

G. GrewalAgent
1 appearance

for J & S Holdings Inc. and Gary Mayers

Gary MayersSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Kamoaks Limited

Thomas ReveszAgent
1 appearance

for Kaprod Holdings Ltd.

P. GrosmanParalegal
1 appearance

for Millford Development Limited

Andrew WinkworthAgent
2 appearances
Mike GuillemetteAgent
2 appearances

for MPAC

William SomervilleAgent
7 appearances
Pierre LefebvreAgent
6 appearances
Justin JohnstoneAgent
6 appearances
Louise St. JeanAgent
5 appearances
Toban EdmundsAgent
5 appearances
Frank SheaCounsel
3 appearances
Ian JohnstoneCounsel
3 appearances
Don MitchellCounsel
3 appearances
Antonietta Romano-BitontiAgent
3 appearances
William SomervilleCounsel
3 appearances
Wayne WilliamsAgent
3 appearances
Tony PileggiAgent
3 appearances
Bonnie MickAgent
2 appearances
Erin ComeauAgent
2 appearances
Jessie YuAgent
2 appearances
John ColeAgent
2 appearances
John TaraborrelliAgent
2 appearances
Corinne Van RaayAgent
2 appearances
Jane Sokol-KennedyAgent
2 appearances
Geoff HigginsonAgent
2 appearances

for Municipality of Brockton

Trish BagloleAgent
1 appearance

for Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Sarah CormanCounsel
2 appearances
Hilary BrownCounsel
2 appearances
Melissa VanBerkumCounsel
2 appearances
Michael RadanAgent
2 appearances
Leo ChapdelaineAgent
1 appearance
Loris FataAgent
1 appearance
Michael RadanCounsel
1 appearance
Adam ParkerAgent
1 appearance
Carrie CaroneCounsel
1 appearance
Damian BernacikAgent
1 appearance
Francis X. SheaCounsel
1 appearance
George KaldenbachAgent
1 appearance

for North American Railway Hall of Fame

Larry LongfieldAgent
2 appearances
Paul SmithAgent
2 appearances
Matt JanesAgent
2 appearances

for Nuance Group Canada Inc., The Nuance Group Canada Inc., and Nuance Global Traders Inc.

Peter A. MilliganCounsel
1 appearance
James G. WalkerCounsel
1 appearance

for Parkyards Inc.

Lukas KwiatkowskiAgent
1 appearance

for Rutherford Properties Ltd.

Chandelle HamiltonAgent
1 appearance
Colin FrancisAgent
1 appearance

for Sota Holdings Ltd.

Dorota MarshallAgent
2 appearances

for Stelco Inc.

Kathleen PooleCounsel
1 appearance
Lauren LackieCounsel
1 appearance

for Stephanie Bowman and David Farwell

Surin ToorAgent
1 appearance

for St. Mary’s Cement Inc. (Canada); Capital Paving Inc; Preston Sand and Gravel Company; 2416854 Ontario Inc.

J. CowanCounsel
2 appearances

for Syed Raza and Sadia Raza

Marc KemererCounsel
1 appearance

for the Appellant

Robert BaranowskiAgent
6 appearances
Surin ToorAgent
3 appearances
Andrew WinkworthAgent
3 appearances
Mike GuillemetteAgent
3 appearances
Gurjit S. GrewalSelf-represented
2 appearances
Andrew AttardAgent
2 appearances
Peter TamAgent
2 appearances
Alan Benjamin YoungSelf-represented
1 appearance
Alexander TyutyunnikAgent
1 appearance
Allan HolmesAgent
1 appearance
A.M.C.Self-represented
1 appearance
Andrew PetersenAgent
1 appearance
Arwa MhawiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bernard CassarSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brendan ChartersAgent
1 appearance
Charles DobuckiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cindy AsselstineSelf-represented
1 appearance
Eugene SawchukAgent
1 appearance
F. R.Self-represented
1 appearance
Garth AllenAgent
1 appearance

for the Appellants

Harry BattuSelf-represented
2 appearances
James CraneSelf-represented
2 appearances
Dawn Marie GriffithSelf-represented
2 appearances
Steven Scott GriffithSelf-represented
2 appearances
Bernarda KrasowskiSelf-represented
2 appearances
Arnold AugspolsSelf-represented
2 appearances
Craig LaneSelf-represented
1 appearance
David Van SegbrookSelf-represented
1 appearance
Debbie-Jane Prada-SheaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dianne Elizabeth MillarSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald RennickSelf-represented
1 appearance
Earnest LightSelf-represented
1 appearance
Edward SheaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Elizabeth DeMerchantSelf-represented
1 appearance
Eugene Stewart DoreySelf-represented
1 appearance
Fritz NussbergerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gary CaseSelf-represented
1 appearance
George ParazaderSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glenn McNeilSelf-represented
1 appearance
James Edward CraneSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicant

J.K.Self-represented
2 appearances
P.B.Agent
2 appearances
P.S.Self-represented
2 appearances
R.A.Self-represented
2 appearances
C.A.Agent
1 appearance
D. D.Self-represented
1 appearance
D.N.Self-represented
1 appearance
E.C.Agent
1 appearance
G.B.Self-represented
1 appearance
G.C.Agent
1 appearance
G.E.B.Self-represented
1 appearance
G. H.Self-represented
1 appearance
I.H.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.E.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.H.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.O.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.P.B.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.R.Self-represented
1 appearance
K.P.Self-represented
1 appearance
K.S.Agent
1 appearance

for the Applicants

N.P.R.Self-represented
2 appearances
V.R.Self-represented
2 appearances
J.G.Self-represented
2 appearances
I.R-B.Self-represented
1 appearance
I.S.Self-represented
1 appearance
J.Y. and M.Y.Self-represented
1 appearance
L.G.Self-represented
1 appearance
M.I.Self-represented
1 appearance
M.N.Self-represented
1 appearance
N.C.Self-represented
1 appearance
N.K.Self-represented
1 appearance
N.S.Self-represented
1 appearance
O.I.Self-represented
1 appearance
P.S.Agent
1 appearance
R.B.Self-represented
1 appearance
R.H.Self-represented
1 appearance
R.S.Self-represented
1 appearance
U.K.Self-represented
1 appearance
V.M.Self-represented
1 appearance
Y.S.K.Self-represented
1 appearance

for the Assessed

Eli MartinSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Assessed Person

Erin PicklesAgent
1 appearance
Jeff PicklesAgent
1 appearance
Ratha HalfordAgent
1 appearance

for the Assessed Persons

Isaak Penner DoerksenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Manassah Martin DoerksenSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the City of Brampton

Aida KarremanAgent
4 appearances

for the City of Burlington

Paul LacelleAgent
1 appearance

for the City of Cambridge

David HotsonAgent
2 appearances
Kendra SchollAgent
2 appearances
Shawn McConkeyAgent
1 appearance

for the City of Hamilton

Linda NimakoAgent
4 appearances
Irwin SampatAgent
3 appearances
Alexander TyutyunnikAgent
1 appearance
John O’KaneCounsel
1 appearance

for the City of Kitchener

Paul YeomanAgent
1 appearance

for the City of London

Brian ShimlaAgent
2 appearances
Geoff BelchCounsel
1 appearance
James EdmundsAgent
1 appearance

for the City of London and Brian Shimla

Geoff BelchCounsel
1 appearance

for the City of Mississauga

Sean DoyleAgent
8 appearances
Sean DoyleCounsel
2 appearances
Barb MaltaAgent
1 appearance

for the City of Niagara Falls

Stephanie YoungAgent
1 appearance
Amber FergusonAgent
1 appearance
Anthony ScaringiAgent
1 appearance
Miranda AdamsonAgent
1 appearance

for the City of Thunder Bay

Vince DesandoAgent
3 appearances

for the City of Toronto

Graham ThomsonCounsel
5 appearances
Luis VerasteguiCounsel
4 appearances
J. BoyczukCounsel
3 appearances
Georgia KarakolisAgent
1 appearance
Graham ThompsonCounsel
1 appearance
Graham ThomsonAgent
1 appearance
Jared WherleCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer BoyczukCounsel
1 appearance
Laura NymanCounsel
1 appearance
Luis VerasteguiAgent
1 appearance
Melanie ShankarCounsel
1 appearance
Alison MintoffCounsel
1 appearance
Melanie ShankarAgent
1 appearance
Amy TieuCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher HendersonCounsel
1 appearance

for the City of Windsor

Janice GuthrieAgent
1 appearance
Jose MejalliAgent
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Dorothy GibbonsAgent
1 appearance
Joel FarberCounsel
1 appearance

for The Corporation of the City of Mississauga

Brad TeichmanCounsel
1 appearance

for the County of Lambton and City of Sarnia

Donald DaviesAgent
1 appearance
Gaetano TudinoAgent
1 appearance

for the County of Wellington

C. KuehlCounsel
2 appearances
R. ShoomCounsel
2 appearances

for the Estate of Peter Dyriw and Roman Dyriw

Roman DyriwSelf-represented
1 appearance

for themselves

Damian Anthony SmithSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michelle Lynne SmithSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Municipality

Dennis DoyleAgent
1 appearance
William DakinAgent
1 appearance

for the Municipality of Greenstone

Jack KuzminskiAgent
1 appearance
Lorne ChristensonAgent
1 appearance

for the Municipality of Huron Shores

Deborah TonelliAgent
2 appearances

for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Tim OberleAgent
4 appearances
Jessie YuAgent
2 appearances
D. MitchellCounsel
2 appearances
J. BarlowCounsel
2 appearances
Laurie DeWinterAgent
2 appearances
Michael RadanAgent
2 appearances
Sheryl McRobertsAgent
2 appearances
Terence JohnstonAgent
2 appearances
Damian BernacikAgent
1 appearance
Amanda GordonAgent
1 appearance
Donald MitchellCounsel
1 appearance
Evan MendelAgent
1 appearance
Helene BlackburnAgent
1 appearance
Jacqui IrwinAgent
1 appearance
Tanya Janeczek-BoyleAgent
1 appearance
Amber WalshAgent
1 appearance
John HyattAgent
1 appearance
Kalin DoucetAgent
1 appearance
Karen BallAgent
1 appearance
Tara JonesAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Sean DoyleAgent
12 appearances
Sean DoyleCounsel
6 appearances
Jennifer BoyczukCounsel
3 appearances
Laura NymanCounsel
2 appearances
Melanie ShankarAgent
2 appearances
Georgia TannerCounsel
1 appearance
Graham ThomsonCounsel
1 appearance
Irwin SampatAgent
1 appearance
James EdmundsAgent
1 appearance
Jennifer ErringtonAgent
1 appearance
Justin JohnstoneAgent
1 appearance
Linda LiottiAgent
1 appearance
Linda NimakoAgent
1 appearance
Luis VerasteguiCounsel
1 appearance
Melanie ShankarCounsel
1 appearance
Paul HettingaCounsel
1 appearance
Sue StraughanAgent
1 appearance
Y. KwiecienAgent
1 appearance
A. KarremanAgent
1 appearance
Alexander TyutyunnikAgent
1 appearance

for the Town of Halton Hills

Elizabeth van RavensAgent
1 appearance

for the Town of Newmarket

Dora WohlsteinAgent
1 appearance
Grace MarshAgent
1 appearance
Paul VoornCounsel
1 appearance
Selene AliAgent
1 appearance

for the Town of Oakville

Susan PriceAgent
5 appearances

for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Tracy ParsonsAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Johnson

Herman KlingenbergAgent
5 appearances

for the Township of King

Alice LiuAgent
1 appearance
Karen WoottonAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Laird

Jennifer ErringtonAgent
2 appearances

for the Township of Zorra

Kelly HallAgent
1 appearance

for Timberland Equipment Limited

Paul J. SmithAgent
3 appearances
Loryn LuxAgent
2 appearances

for Town of Halton Hills

Elizabeth van RavensAgent
1 appearance

for Town of Leamington

Laura RauchAgent
2 appearances
Ginny CampbellAgent
1 appearance
Delores JefferyAgent
1 appearance

for Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Tracy ParsonsAgent
1 appearance

for T Valeri Construction Limited

Paul GrosmanAgent
2 appearances

for Vale Canada Limited

Belinda SchubertCounsel
2 appearances
Philip SanfordCounsel
2 appearances

for Werh Group Inc.

Bonnie PetroAgent
1 appearance

for Z.C.

E.C.Agent
1 appearance

Self-represented

P.H.Self-represented
1 appearance

252

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

2.0

cases/mo

OARB252(100%)

Decision types

appeal

202

trial

motion

Page 4 of 13 (252 cases)

Dan Weagant

Carole Ogus v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 and City of Toronto, 2022 CanLII 12735

Dan Weagant

Guiseppe Macera v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18 and City of Niagara Falls, 2022 CanLII 12779

Marc Kemerer

Dan Weagant

Syed Raza and Sadia Raza v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2022 CanLII 7582

Dan Weagant

Wendy Moore v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2022 CanLII 7587

Dan Weagant

U.K. and N.S. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19 and City of Hamilton, 2022 CanLII 3270

Dan Weagant

O’Malley v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2022 CanLII 1604

Michael Radan

Subuola Awoleri

Dan Weagant

Firestone Textiles Company v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2022 CanLII 1615

Dan Weagant

P.S. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 31, 2021 CanLII 105813

R. Shoom

R. Minster

J. Cowan

J. Barlow

D. Rosman

D. Mitchell

C. Kuehl

Vincent Stabile

Dan Weagant

County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 22, 2021 CanLII 101834

Dan Weagant

M.I. and J.J.K. (Estate) v. City of London, 2021 CanLII 88707

Dan Weagant

Harry Battu and Ramandeep Battu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 88754

Jennifer Boyczuk

Dan Weagant

M.N. and N.K. v. City of Toronto, 2021 CanLII 83467

Dan Weagant

V.R. and N.P.R. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 80771

Dan Weagant

A.K.M.F and N.A. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 74741

Dan Weagant

V.R. and N.P.R. v. City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 63314

Dan Weagant

Harry Battu and Ramandeep Kaur Battu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 56407

Dan Weagant

Paul Forsyth v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 51699

Dan Weagant

Latour v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 41884

R. Shoom

R. Minster

J. Cowan

J. Barlow

D. Rosman

D. Mitchell

C. Kuehl

Vincent Stabile

Dan Weagant

County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 22, 2021 CanLII 26723

Dan Weagant

Bernard Cassar v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Mississauga, 2021 CanLII 23937

assisted the Applicant

for 1490804 Ontario Limited and Angie Cormpilas

for 2320480 Ontario Limited

for 2440781 Ontario Limited

for 3022056 Canada Inc.

for 409315 Ontario Ltd.

for 440 Elizabeth Street Holding and 440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd.

for 625041 Ontario Limited

for 8768013 Canada Ltd.

for Aipco Inc.

for Amalie Holdings Limited

for Amos Weber and Betsy Hoover Weber

for Bell Canada

for Bryfam Enterprises Inc.

for Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc.

for City of Burlington

for City of Greater Sudbury

for City of Hamilton

for City of London

for City of Niagara Falls