Motion for additional initial disclosure denied as appellant failed to request specific documents.
The appellant property owner brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of his vacant commercial land.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to request specific documents, making it impossible to determine relevance.
The Board noted that MPAC had already provided comprehensive initial disclosure via its online database, and the appellant would have the opportunity to request further specific disclosure after the exchange of the Statement of Issues and Statement of Response.
Order for disclosure of third-party property documents granted on consent.
The appellant, Morguard Realty Holdings Inc., requested an order for the disclosure of documents from 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 Town of Aurora, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure on consent.
Consent order granted requiring MPAC to disclose documents relating to non-appealed properties.
The appellants requested an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.
On consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to the terms imposed under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.
The requesting parties sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.
As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.
Motion for disclosure of third-party property income and expense statements granted on consent.
The requesting party, 310171 Ontario Limited, sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for several properties not under appeal.
As neither MPAC nor the City of Ottawa opposed the request, the Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents.
Disclosure of third-party property documents ordered on consent in assessment appeal.
The appellant requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements for several properties not under appeal.
As neither MPAC nor the municipality opposed the request, the Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure order on consent, subject to terms imposed by MPAC under s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.
Consent order granted requiring MPAC to disclose third-party property documents.
The appellant requested an order for MPAC to disclose income and expense statements for several properties not under appeal.
As the request was on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.
Request for review of late appeal refusal dismissed; illness does not excuse missed statutory deadline.
The requester sought a review of the Assessment Review Board's decision refusing his request to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year.
The requester argued that a severe medical illness prevented him from reviewing the Property Assessment Notice and managing his affairs until several months after the appeal deadline.
The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that because the requester had actually received the notice, the Board had no statutory jurisdiction or residual discretion under the Assessment Act or the Fleming exception to extend the absolute deadline for filing an appeal.
Request for review of property assessment decision dismissed as no significant error was established.
The appellant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied an equitable reduction of her property's assessed value.
She argued the hearing member made errors of fact and law, including misapplying the similarity test for comparable properties and failing to consider her cited case law.
The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the hearing member correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test, based his findings on the evidence adduced, and provided sufficient analysis to support his determination.
The appellants requested an order requiring MPAC to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.
Request for review of property assessment decision dismissed; no breach of procedural fairness found.
The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their residential property.
The Requester argued that the Hearing Member breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit late-filed evidence and erred in determining the property's current value.
The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the Requester failed to establish exceptional circumstances for the late filing of evidence and that there was ample evidence to support the Hearing Member's valuation.
Board rules on cross-motions for disclosure in casino property assessment appeal, applying relevance and proportionality.
In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.
The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.
The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.
The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.
Motion for additional initial disclosure denied as appellant failed to show existing disclosure was insufficient.
The Appellant brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from MPAC to assist in preparing its Statement of Issues regarding the assessment of its retail property.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the disclosure already provided by MPAC in its 'AboutMyProperty' database was insufficient to explain the assessed value.
The Board applied the principle of proportionality and relied on its previous decision in Accu Servo, which dealt with identical disclosure requests.
Motion for extensive disclosure in property assessment appeal largely dismissed as disproportionate and lacking specificity.
The property owners appealed their residential property assessment and brought a motion for disclosure of various documents from MPAC, including a map of the homogenous neighbourhood, spreadsheets of all residential properties, property assessment detail sheets, and lists of properties that received reductions.
The Assessment Review Board allowed the motion in part, ordering MPAC to provide the map it had agreed to produce.
The Board dismissed the remaining requests, finding them disproportionate, lacking in specificity, or seeking information already available to the owners through MPAC's online database.
Motion for disclosure of property assessment data denied for lack of specificity and relevancy.
The appellants, owners of a seasonal waterfront property, brought a motion under Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting that MPAC disclose various property assessment details, calculations, and inspection notes.
The Board denied the motion in its entirety, finding that the appellants failed to sufficiently identify the specific documents requested, the specific issues in dispute, or how the requested information was relevant and proportionate to the appeals.
Motion for additional initial disclosure in property assessment appeal denied for failing to show necessity.
The Appellant, owner of a specialty automotive shop, brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from MPAC to prepare its Statement of Issues for its property assessment appeals.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the standard disclosure provided by MPAC in its 'AboutMyProperty' database was insufficient.
Relying on a similar recent decision, the Board concluded the requested additional disclosure was not necessary at this stage of the proceeding.
Motion for disclosure of MPAC valuation work files and internal correspondence denied on proportionality grounds.
The appellant property owner brought a motion for disclosure of MPAC's valuation work files, draft reports, and internal correspondence relating to the assessment of her seasonal recreational property.
MPAC agreed to provide notes explaining prior year adjustments but opposed the remaining requests.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had already received sufficient initial disclosure and that the additional requested documents were either irrelevant or their production would not be proportional to the complexity and importance of the issues in dispute.
Motion for additional disclosure dismissed for failing to explain relevance of requested documents.
The appellant property owner brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from MPAC regarding the assessment of its shopping centre property.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to clearly identify the requested documents or explain their relevance to the issues in dispute.
The Board noted that MPAC had already provided sufficient initial disclosure through its online database to allow the appellant to prepare a Statement of Issues.
Motion for disclosure of MPAC's mass appraisal data denied as disproportionate.
The appellant property owner brought a motion requesting disclosure of information relating to MPAC's valuation of the subject property and other properties using its mass appraisal method.
MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the information was not relevant and its production would be disproportionate, as it intended to rely on a comparable sales valuation method rather than mass appraisal.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the valuation method may be relevant, requiring MPAC to produce complex mass appraisal data when it was not relying on that method would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in dispute.
Motion for additional initial disclosure denied as premature prior to the exchange of pleadings.
The Appellant, owner of a vacant commercial property, appealed its 2016 property assessment and brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from MPAC prior to filing its Statement of Issues.
MPAC argued the request was premature as the specific issues in dispute had not yet been identified through pleadings.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC's standard initial disclosure was sufficient for the Appellant to prepare a Statement of Issues, and that any further disclosure requests should be made after the exchange of pleadings when the issues in dispute are clearly defined.