Hayleigh Cudmore

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their residential property for the 2025 and 2026 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $503,000 to $340,000.

MPAC sought a reduction to $468,000 based on the property's state and condition due to ongoing renovations.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the "state and condition" adjustment, finding no legislative authority to reduce the value for interim repairs.

Using the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the current value to be $491,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

MPAC brought a motion requesting an order for the disclosure of the appellant's commercial lease for a grocery store property.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that producing the full historical lease was disproportionate and that lease summaries were sufficient.

The Assessment Review Board found the lease relevant to determining fair market rent under the income approach.

The Board ordered disclosure of the lease in effect for the 2015 and 2016 years, finding the request proportionate and noting that statutory confidentiality protections apply.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for the disclosure of a full commercial lease from the appellant, Metro Ontario Inc., in a property assessment appeal.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that it had already provided a lease summary and excerpts, and that producing the full historical lease would be overly burdensome and reveal commercially sensitive information.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the full lease was relevant to determining the property's current value using the income approach, and that its disclosure was proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Board noted that statutory protections exist for commercially sensitive information.

The Appellant appealed the 2023, 2024, and 2025 property assessments for a 231-acre property comprising residential, commercial, and managed forest lands.

The dispute centered on the valuation of newly constructed residential improvements, the classification of a machine shop as commercial rather than residential, and the valuation of the managed forest.

The Assessment Review Board upheld the commercial classification for the machine shop and the managed forest valuation methodology.

The Board adjusted the effective dates for the supplementary assessments of the residential improvements, finding that the pool and pool house were in use by June 2024 and the residence by January 2025, and set the current values accordingly.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2024 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant met the definition of extreme poverty based on her income, it found that she was not 'unable to pay' her taxes.

The evidence showed the applicant held approximately $35,000 in an RRSP in 2024, which could have been liquidated to pay the $6,673.88 in levied taxes.

The application was dismissed.