Jean-Paul Pilon

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the property owner to extend the time to file assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to palpable errors in the assessment roll.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the municipal address and assessed the property based on the dimensions of a different property, resulting in a significant overassessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the errors were inadvertent, obvious, and highly prejudicial to the owner.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, extending the time for the appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The moving party, Madera Building & Renovations Inc., brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year.

The moving party purchased the subject property in March 2021 but did not receive a notice of assessment.

After receiving a tax bill in July 2021, the moving party contacted the Board within 30 days and submitted an incorrect form to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration.

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

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The moving party requested to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2021 taxation year.

The moving party argued that it did not receive the notice of reconsideration because it was mailed to an old address, despite having notified MPAC of an address change.

The Board found that the deadline to file an appeal was August 30, 2021, and the appeal was filed two days late on September 1, 2021.

The Board dismissed the motion, concluding it had no jurisdiction to accept the late appeal because the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2016 taxation year.

He argued that he was misinformed by Board staff that his 2017 appeal would cover the 2016 year.

The Assessment Review Board found that no appeal was statutorily deemed for 2016 under the Assessment Act.

Furthermore, the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal, as he had received notice of the assessment and failed to file within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The motion was dismissed.

The Requestor sought a review of a Board decision that denied its motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals.

The Requestor argued the Board made significant errors of law regarding the service of a notice of higher assessment, the interpretation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to enforce the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law in the original decision.

The Board confirmed that the notice was properly served on the party, that Rule 40 only applied to summary proceedings, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

The property owner brought two motions in an assessment appeal initiated by the municipality.

The first motion sought to dismiss the municipality's appeals, arguing that the municipality's failure to provide expert evidence constituted an abuse of process and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

The Board dismissed this motion, finding no requirement in the rules to call expert witnesses and no abuse of process.

The second motion sought to constrain MPAC from seeking an assessment higher than returned on the roll, and requested permission to video record the hearing.

The Board held that MPAC is entitled to seek a higher assessment, but constrained MPAC from relying on its second and third Statements of Response and expert reports because they were served late without exceptional circumstances.

The request to record the hearing was dismissed due to deficiencies in the application, with leave to renew at the hearing.

The Township of Warwick appealed the property assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

The central issue was whether the valuation of the landfill under section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 should include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, as the regulation mandates valuing the land as if it were vacant industrial land.

The Board set the current value of the property at $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Requestor sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed his application for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Requestor argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding his bank balance, a loan from his son, and his past business circumstances.

The Board found no significant error of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision and dismissed the request for review.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed her application for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant alleged the Board made a significant error of fact by stating she acknowledged certain legal fees were unnecessary.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that even if an error of fact was made, the applicant had sufficient other funds available to pay her property taxes, meaning the Board would not have reached a different decision.

The Township of Warwick appealed the MPAC assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was whether section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 requires the valuation of the landfill as 'vacant industrial land' to include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 establishes a special valuation regime that ousts the general market value approach under section 19(1) of the Assessment Act.

Consequently, the value of the remaining landfilling capacity must be excluded.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $6,387,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of her waterfront single-family home.

MPAC had assessed the property at $634,000 for 2020 and $539,000 for 2021, but proposed a reduction to $482,000 at the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's adjustments to comparable properties as unsubstantiated, instead using a bracketing method with two unadjusted comparable sales to determine a current value of $456,250.

The Board further applied an assessment-to-sales ratio (ASR) of 0.910 to ensure equity with similar properties, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $415,000.

The appellants requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their residential property.

They alleged the Board made significant errors of fact by relying on an incorrect building permit value and by incorrectly determining the property had a basement.

The Board found that while the permit value cited in the original decision was incorrect, the error was not significant because the original decision relied on sales data rather than permit value to determine current value.

The Board also found it had not made any determination that the property had a basement.

The request for review was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years and to be directed as the appellant.

The motion was based on palpable errors in the assessment roll, specifically the double taxation of a misdescribed storage locker.

The Assessment Review Board found that the errors were of conspicuous magnitude and constituted palpable errors.

Given the lack of prejudice to the municipality and the benefit to the taxpayer, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion and create the appeals.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years regarding a property incorrectly assessed as a parking unit instead of a storage locker.

MPAC sought to be directed as the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description and the assessment of the property to the wrong owner constituted palpable errors.

Given the lack of prejudice and the consent of the municipality, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion, extending the time for the appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years and to be directed as the appellant.

The motion arose after MPAC discovered that a property assessed as a parking unit was actually a storage locker that had already been accounted for in another roll number, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description and double assessment constituted palpable errors.

Given the consent of the City of Toronto and the lack of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion, extending the time for appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The moving party sought to file late appeals for property assessments from 2012 to 2017, alleging palpable errors regarding the inclusion of a parking space and locker.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to provide affidavit evidence as required by Rule 64.

Furthermore, the moving party did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged errors were inadvertent, unintentional, obvious, and plain, nor did they justify why the Board should exercise its discretion to allow late appeals.

The moving party property owner brought a motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding the assessment of its property for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The moving party and MPAC believed an agreement had been reached based on email correspondence, but the municipality argued it had not accepted the offer.

The Assessment Review Board found that the municipality's emails did not constitute an absolute and unequivocal acceptance of the proposed terms, meaning no binding settlement was reached.

However, finding exceptional circumstances, the Board extended the timeline in the Schedule of Events to allow the parties to file their documentation, with the exception of any expert reports from MPAC.

The appellant appealed the commercial classification of his mixed-use property, arguing the second floor and basement should be classified as residential.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant met the burden of proof to show the second floor and basement were used or intended to be used for residential purposes.

The Board applied the Intracorp test, considering the actual features of the construction and the lack of substantial indication of non-residential use.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the first floor remaining commercial and the second floor and basement reclassified as residential.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their property.

A hearing was scheduled by telephone conference call, but the appellant did not attend.

The respondent noted that the notice of hearing was sent by email, whereas previous correspondence had been sent by regular mail, raising concerns about whether the appellant received proper notice.

The Assessment Review Board adjourned the matter, ordered the hearing to be rescheduled with notice sent by regular mail, and directed the parties to serve and file their documentation in advance of the new hearing date.

MPAC brought a motion to strike portions of the City of Kitchener's expert report that raised issues not pleaded in its Statement of Response.

The City argued MPAC lacked standing because it served its Statement of Response late.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC had standing as a statutory party and restricted the City from raising unpleaded issues, limiting the appeal to fair market rent.

However, because MPAC served its Statement of Response late without exceptional circumstances, the Board ruled MPAC had no pleadings, could not file its expert report, and is deemed not to oppose any future settlement.