Dan Weagant

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2018 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 City of Mississauga delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence and found that his average monthly income exceeded his monthly expenses, leaving sufficient funds to pay the levied taxes.

Consequently, the Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The applicants applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2018 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 City of Mississauga delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicants' financial records, noting that their household income significantly exceeded their monthly expenses, they had no mortgage, and they paid off their credit cards monthly.

The Board found the applicants were able to pay the 2018 property taxes and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2016 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 City delegated the decision to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient funds in her bank accounts at the end of 2016 to pay the outstanding property taxes.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, the application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2016 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient funds in her bank accounts at the end of 2016 to pay the outstanding property taxes while still maintaining a positive balance.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, the application was denied.

The appellant appealed the omitted assessments for 2015 and 2016, and the returned assessment for 2017-2019, for a multi-residential property that had been renovated following a fire.

The property was subject to an affordable housing agreement that restricted rents below market value.

The Board held that market rents, rather than actual subsidized rents, must be used to determine the property's current value under the income approach.

The Board reduced the 2015 and 2016 assessments to $4,758,000 to reflect a lower gross income multiplier and an equity adjustment, but confirmed the 2017-2019 assessments at $5,189,000.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not reflected in the assessment.

MPAC subsequently issued omitted assessments to add an Industrial property class and increase the value.

The Assessment Review Board found that while industrial use was occurring, MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value, as its cost approach evidence was unreliable and lacked necessary detail.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $347,000, but apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class to recognize the undisputed industrial use.

The Township of Johnson appealed the current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not adequately reflected.

MPAC had applied omitted assessments to add an industrial property class.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value of $322,000, apportioning a nominal $1,000 to the industrial class.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 property assessment of a farm property, arguing the assessment was too low because it failed to account for ongoing industrial activity.

MPAC had returned a value of $503,000 based on residential and farm classifications.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the correctness of the current value, as its cost approach lacked sufficient detail.

However, the Board also found the Township's evidence insufficient to prove a different value.

Applying the principle from Patry, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $503,000.

Acknowledging the undisputed industrial use, the Board apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class, reducing the Farm class value accordingly.

The Township appealed the 2019 property assessment, arguing that the property's industrial use was not adequately reflected in its value.

MPAC had applied omitted and supplementary assessments to recognize the industrial activity.

The Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the correctness of the current value, as it did not provide sufficient evidence on how the building values and depreciation were calculated.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $131,000 and apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 property assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity warranted a higher assessment.

MPAC amended its valuation to include the Industrial property class but the Township disputed the valuation methodology, specifically the use of the Agricultural Cost Guide instead of an industrial cost guide.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value of $336,000, while recognizing the industrial use by attributing a nominal value of $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The applicants applied to have their 2018 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants were unable to pay their property taxes in full due to both sickness and extreme poverty, as their monthly expenses exceeded their income.

The Board ordered the 2018 property taxes to be reduced by $636, reflecting the average monthly financial shortfall.

The applicants applied to the City of Hamilton under section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicants' financial evidence, which showed an annual family net income of approximately $128,863 and monthly expenses significantly lower than their monthly income.

The Board found that the applicants had adequate income to meet their financial commitments and failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2018 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's household income and expenses and found that she had a monthly surplus and had already paid the 2018 property taxes in full.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family dwelling that had been under construction since 2013.

The appellant argued that because the building was incomplete and unfit for occupancy, it was not subject to assessment.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that under sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the Assessment Act, all real property, including parts of buildings, is liable to assessment unless specifically exempted.

As single-family dwellings under construction are not exempt, the partially completed building was subject to assessment for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 52.1-acre farm property, arguing the Class 2 farmland rate per acre applied by MPAC was too high.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's classification of 36.1 acres as Class 2 farmland but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and farm size adjustments.

The Board reduced the assessment from $610,000 (2017) and $547,000 (2018-2019) to $520,000 for all three taxation years.

The Board found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 50-acre farm property, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) applied an excessive rate per acre and incorrectly classified the land as Class 2 instead of Class 3.

The Assessment Review Board qualified MPAC's assessors as expert witnesses and accepted their evidence that the property consisted of 49.5 acres of Class 2 farmland.

After reviewing comparable sales and applying adjustments for farm size and market conditions, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $642,000, reducing the assessments from $760,000 (2017) and $701,000 (2018-2019).

The Board found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

The applicant applied to have his 2018 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Mississauga delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence, which showed a monthly income exceeding documented expenses and access to funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their 100.58-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued the rate per acre applied by MPAC was too high and that a portion of the property should be classified as Class 3 rather than Class 2 farmland.

The Board preferred MPAC's expert evidence regarding the land classification but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and farm size adjustments.

The Board reduced the assessments for all three years but found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The applicants applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had a monthly income exceeding their expenses and possessed significant cash assets and savings.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 10-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $559,000 based on comparable sales of farm properties.

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

As neither the respondent nor the municipality sought a higher assessment, the original assessment of $550,000 was confirmed.