Jean-Paul Pilon

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a 14-storey office building in London, Ontario for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach to determine the current value, agreeing on a capitalization rate of 9.5%.

The Assessment Review Board determined the gross income based on the appellants' uncontested evidence of fair market rents for comparable properties.

The Board also determined the appropriate vacancy allowance to be 30% and the expense allowance to be 22.5%.

Applying these figures, the Board reduced the assessment of the subject property from $4,993,000 to $4,732,000.

The property owner filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year under Rule 26(b).

The owner claimed they did not receive a response to their Request for Reconsideration (RfR) from MPAC until a misdelivered 2022 assessment prompted them to inquire.

The Board found that the owner failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b), as they had received the initial notice of assessment and did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to determine that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property and to prohibit the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

The property had been returned as exempt by MPAC.

The City attempted to challenge the exemption by appealing the property's classification.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that jurisdiction to determine tax exemption resides entirely with the Superior Court and prohibiting the City from circumventing this limitation by framing the issue as a classification dispute.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting a determination that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property, and an order prohibiting the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

MPAC had previously determined the subject property was exempt from taxation.

The City appealed, arguing the property should be classified in the multi-residential property class.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is exempt from taxation, as that jurisdiction resides with the Superior Court.

The Board also held that the City could not circumvent this limitation by challenging the property's classification, and prohibited the City from raising tax liability as an issue.

The appellant property owner filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept late appeals for three commercial condominium units for the 2020 taxation year.

The Board applied Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires the appellant to prove they were entitled to notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

While the appellant met the first two requirements, the Board found the appellant must have been aware of the assessment when filing a Request for Reconsideration on June 9, 2020.

Because the appeal was filed more than 30 days after that date, the motion for a late appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2021 taxation year, which was returned at $755,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $774,979 based on its recent sale price.

The Board rejected the appellants' argument for an equitable reduction, finding that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's equity analysis of 30 similar properties in the vicinity was appropriate and did not warrant an adjustment.

The returned assessment of $755,000 was confirmed.

The moving party filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept late appeals for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years for a property in Barrie.

The motion was brought pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party's affidavit failed to provide any of the mandatory information required by Rule 26(b), such as whether he was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed within 30 days of becoming aware.

Consequently, the motion was denied.

The appellant property owner brought a motion to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2021 taxation year.

The appellant argued it did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment increase when the municipality's monthly bank withdrawal for property taxes increased significantly.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the appellant was entitled to receive the notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The applicant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced her 2019 property taxes from $5,272.29 to $2,326.00 due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant argued the Board made errors of fact regarding her bank account balances and ODSP payments, and violated procedural fairness by not allowing her to explain why the findings were incorrect.

The Board found no errors of fact, noting the ODSP payments were not double-counted, and held there was no violation of procedural fairness.

The request for review was denied.

The applicant sought a refund of $1,939.98 for 2019 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing extreme poverty and his status as an undischarged bankrupt.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant could not access equity in 2019, he successfully obtained a mortgage in 2020 after his bankruptcy discharge to pay the taxes.

The Board held that the applicant was not unable to pay his taxes, as he had mitigated his circumstances by accessing the property's equity when it became available.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation returned an assessed value of $9,637,000.

The Board applied the direct comparison approach, analyzing comparable properties to determine a current value of $10,830,376.

After applying an agreed-upon assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.909 for an equitable adjustment, the adjusted current value was $9,844,812.

Since the returned assessment was reasonably close to this figure, the Board confirmed the assessment of $9,637,000.

The requestors sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value of their residential property was higher than the value returned on the assessment roll by MPAC.

The requestors argued the Board made significant errors of law, violated procedural fairness, and acted with bias, particularly because MPAC had not requested a higher assessment.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value of the land, regardless of whether MPAC requested an increase.

The Board also found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, noting the requestors had an opportunity to make submissions on the higher value.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 113-unit multi-residential rental building in Kingston for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed that the income approach was the best method for determining the current value, but disagreed on the appropriate capitalization rate and whether the direct comparison approach should be used as a check.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the direct comparison approach due to a lack of similar comparable properties.

After analyzing the comparable sales provided by both experts, the Board determined a base capitalization rate of 5.89%, resulting in an overall capitalization rate of 7.16% and a current value of $20,103,701.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required based on the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $18,500,000.

The Grand Theatre Foundation brought a motion to accept a late appeal of its 2021 property assessment.

The Foundation acquired the property in March 2021 and did not receive a notice of assessment.

Although the Foundation missed the March 31 deadline, it contacted the Board and filed a request to extend time on April 1, within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Foundation met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal, including that filing in the wrong form within 30 days was sufficient.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The moving party sought to file late property assessment appeals for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, claiming they did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) for the 2021 taxation year, as they did not receive the notice and filed an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via a tax bill.

However, the Board denied the request for the 2020 taxation year because no evidence was provided regarding the failure to receive notice for that year.

The motion was granted in part.

The moving party, 1033291 Ontario Inc., brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year.

The moving party's president filed an affidavit stating he did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the change in classification upon receiving a tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they were entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The moving party brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year regarding a property assessed in both residential and farm classes.

The Board found that filing a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC was a mandatory precondition to an appeal under the Assessment Act.

The Board concluded there were no extenuating circumstances to extend the time to file an RfR, and the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal.

The motion was denied.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2021 taxation year, claiming he did not receive a notice of assessment and only became aware of the change upon receiving a tax bill.

The respondent argued that filing a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) was a precondition because the property had a conservation land component.

The Board found that the property did not include conservation land for the 2021 taxation year, so an RfR was not a precondition.

The Board granted the motion, finding the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) by filing a request to extend the time to file an RfR within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, which demonstrated an intention to appeal.

The moving party requested that the Assessment Review Board accept late appeals for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years regarding a property in Port Colborne.

The moving party claimed it did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notice until late September 2021 and filed the motion in November 2021.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the mandatory requirement under Rule 26(b) to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Moving Party sought to file a late appeal of its 2021 property assessment.

The Moving Party relocated its office and did not receive the notice of assessment until late summer or early fall 2021.

Upon receiving the final tax bill in late June 2021, the Moving Party filed a Request for Reconsideration Extension of Time Form within 30 days.

The Board found that filing the incorrect form still demonstrated an intention to appeal within the 30-day window required by Rule 26(b).

The motion for a late appeal was granted.