Request for review granted; objective Market Basket Measure standard applies to tax relief for sickness.
The City of Niagara Falls requested a review of a Board decision that cancelled the taxpayers' 2023 municipal taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 due to sickness.
The City argued the Board violated procedural fairness when one panel member completed the hearing alone, and that the Board erred in law by not requiring the taxpayers to exhaust all resources to pay taxes.
The Reviewing Member dismissed the procedural fairness ground, noting s. 4.4(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits a remaining member to complete a hearing.
However, the Reviewing Member found a significant error of law because the original decision applied a subjective test based on the taxpayers' actual expenses.
Applying the recent M.A.N. v Hamilton (City) decision, the Board held that the objective standard for basic living necessities in a sickness application is Canada's Official Poverty Line (Market Basket Measure).
The Request for Review was granted and a rehearing ordered.
Board declines to correct palpable assessment error due to owner's prolonged delay and prejudice to municipality.
The property owner applied to correct a palpable error on the assessment rolls for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the assessed value failed to account for an unbuildable rock outcrop that reduced the effective lot size.
The Assessment Review Board found that the omission of the rock outcrop was a factual error of conspicuous magnitude, constituting a palpable error.
However, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to correct the error.
The Board balanced the financial prejudice to the owner against the owner's decade-long delay in raising the issue and the resulting prejudice to the municipality's finalized budgets, concluding that the principle of finality outweighed the need for correction.
Board establishes new objective test for 'extreme poverty' property tax relief but dismisses taxpayer's appeal.
The appellant requested a review of a decision denying a refund of municipal taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act based on extreme poverty.
The Assessment Review Board found that the original Hearing Member made a significant error of law by applying an incorrect test for 'extreme poverty'.
The Board established a new objective framework using Statistics Canada's Market Basket Measure and Deep Income Poverty metrics to define 'extreme poverty'.
However, applying the new framework, the Board concluded that the appellant had sufficient liquid assets (a bank account balance) to pay the taxes while maintaining an allowable cashflow reserve.
The request for review was dismissed.
Motion for disclosure of post-valuation date sale information granted in part.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of subject sale information and appraisals regarding the 2021 purchase of the subject property.
The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the request was late and the information was irrelevant to the 2016 valuation date.
The Assessment Review Board found the motion was not brought too late and that the requested information was relevant to the issues raised by MPAC.
However, the Board found the request was too broad and ordered disclosure limited to the parameters set out in the Board's Disclosure Guideline.
The motion was granted in part.
Third-party financial disclosure ordered in assessment appeal subject to non-disclosure agreement.
The requesting party sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose financial documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.
Three third-party property owners objected, citing the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the information.
The Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure request, finding that the statutory requirement to use the information solely for the appeal and the execution of a Non-Disclosure Agreement provided sufficient protection for the third parties' commercially sensitive information.
Property tax appeals dismissed based on issue estoppel from a prior settlement signed by appellant's paralegal.
The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.
The appellant had previously appealed the 2022 and 2023 taxation years, which were resolved via minutes of settlement signed by the appellant's paralegal representative.
The appellant argued that the paralegal lacked authority to accept the settlement and that the settlement was fraudulent or unconscionable.
The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the prior decisions were final and involved the same parties and issues.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse issue estoppel, finding no evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or that the municipality knew of any limitation on the paralegal's authority.
The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.
Motion to dismiss assessment appeal denied; notice properly served on former owner listed on assessment roll.
The current owner of the subject property brought a motion to dismiss the municipality's assessment appeal, arguing that the municipality failed to provide proper notice under section 40(9) of the Assessment Act by mailing the notice of appeal to the former owner.
The former owner was incorrectly listed on the returned assessment roll due to the timing of the sale.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 40(9) requires notice to be sent to the person liable to assessment as shown on the assessment roll.
The Board held that the assessment roll is binding until corrected, and the municipality complied with the statutory requirements by serving the person named on the roll within the limitation period.
Unopposed motion for third-party property disclosure granted.
The requesting party, Cadillac Fairview, brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.
Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.
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.
Motion to dismiss assessment appeals denied; issue estoppel not applied due to prior procedural unfairness.
The City of Vaughan brought a motion to dismiss Canuck Properties Ltd.'s property assessment appeals for the 2022-2024 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process.
The City argued that the same issues had been decided in a prior appeal proceeding for the 2017-2020 taxation years, which was settled by the tenant without Canuck's active participation.
The Assessment Review Board found that while the strict requirements for issue estoppel were met, it would be a real injustice to apply the doctrine because Canuck was never served with a Statement of Issues in the prior proceeding, constituting an incurable procedural deficiency.
The Board also declined to dismiss the appeals for abuse of process, finding that preventing relitigation would condone a breach of procedural fairness.
The motion was dismissed.
Property tax refund appeal dismissed; renovations were already accounted for in prior assessment reduction.
The appellant property owner applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that renovations commenced in 2022 prevented the normal use of the land.
The City of Barrie denied the application on the basis that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had already reduced the property's assessed value in 2019 to account for the vacancy and anticipated renovations following the departure of an anchor tenant.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 357(1)(g) is intended to address only mid-year changes that a taxpayer cannot address in an appeal of the assessed value.
Because the 2022 renovations were anticipated and accounted for in the 2019 valuation adjustment, they did not constitute a mid-year change warranting further tax relief.
Unopposed motion for disclosure of third-party property assessment documents granted.
The requesting party sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 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 the respondents, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure, subject to specific terms regarding one property.
Motion for issue estoppel deferred to main hearing due to evidentiary ambiguities regarding property improvements.
The appellant property manager brought a motion for issue estoppel, seeking to prevent the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) from reassessing the subject property's current value contrary to a 2020 settlement agreement.
MPAC argued that improvements to the property justified a supplementary assessment.
The Assessment Review Board declined to adjudicate the estoppel motion at the interim stage due to evidentiary ambiguities regarding the improvements and the relationship between the parties.
The Board directed that the estoppel issues be addressed at the main hearing.
Property assessment appeals dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel from a prior proceeding.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.
The appellant argued that the current value of the subject property was inequitable compared to similar lands.
The Assessment Review Board found that the issue of equitable adjustment had already been finally determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the 2017-2020 taxation years.
Applying recent Divisional Court jurisprudence, the Board held that all requirements for issue estoppel were met and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeals.
Board declines to amend 2017 property assessment for plant expansion as production capacity remained unchanged.
The Appellant appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.
In previous interim decisions, the Board confirmed the current values for 2009-2022.
MPAC sought to amend the 2017 current value to reflect a supplementary assessment for a body shop expansion completed mid-year.
The Board found that under the agreed Production Capacity Cost Approach Method, the expansion did not change the facility's normalized annual production capacity, and therefore did not increase the Replacement Cost New.
The Board concluded no amendment to the 2017 current value was required and directed the parties to finalize apportionments.
Property assessment appeals dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel regarding equitable reduction.
The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.
The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, agreeing to an assessed value.
In the current appeals, the appellant did not dispute the assessed value but sought a further reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.
The Assessment Review Board found that the issue of equitable reduction was necessarily before the Board in the prior proceedings and applied issue estoppel, dismissing the appeals.
Motion for additional initial disclosure in property assessment appeals dismissed for lack of specificity and prematurity.
The Appellants, owners of vacant commercial properties in Oshawa and Cambridge, brought a motion requesting additional initial disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to assist in drafting their Statements of Issues.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the requests were either premature, lacked sufficient specificity to determine relevance, or sought documents that did not exist or were not in MPAC's possession.
The Board emphasized that disclosure must be proportionate and relevant to an issue in dispute, and that a party is not required to create new documents to aid another party's case.
Motion to dismiss property assessment appeals granted; issue estoppel applied as valuation day remained unchanged.
The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.
The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.
The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.
Motion to suspend issue estoppel hearing pending Divisional Court appeal in separate matter denied.
The appellant requested a suspension of the schedule for a written hearing of the respondent's issue estoppel motion.
The appellant argued that the motion should be suspended pending the Divisional Court's final decision in a separate appeal (Manulife) where leave to appeal had been granted on similar issue estoppel grounds.
The Assessment Review Board denied the suspension request, finding that the Divisional Court's leave decision was based on case-specific facts regarding whether an equitable adjustment was addressed in a prior settlement, and was unlikely to impact the Board's adjudication of the respondent's motion in this case.
New hearing ordered in property assessment appeal after post-hearing $518M sale contradicted nominal valuation.
The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.
Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.
The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.
However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.
Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.
The requesting party sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.
Notice was served to the owners of the other properties, with only one objection that was not supported by submissions.
As the request was unopposed by MPAC and other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.