Jean-Paul Pilon

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year, alleging a palpable error in the property's classification as a new construction large industrial property rather than a commercial warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board found that while classification errors can constitute palpable errors under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence of the property's use in 2017.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if an error existed, it was not inadvertent or of conspicuous magnitude, and the Board would not exercise its discretion to extend the appeal deadline where the moving party simply failed to appeal in time.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 and 2019 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicants failed to submit the required documentation to prove their inability to pay and did not attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the 2018 application was filed past the statutory deadline in section 357(3) and was therefore invalid.

Both the 2018 and 2019 applications were dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the applicants' failure to appear.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their residential property in Richmond Hill.

MPAC returned a current value assessment of $3,177,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $2,400,000 based on their own comparable properties and adjustments for property-specific limitations.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was a comparable property sale supporting a value of $3,500,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

Because MPAC did not serve notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,177,000.

The applicant filed an application with the municipality for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty, which was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to attend two scheduled pre-hearing teleconferences without explanation, despite being notified and reminded.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their residential property in Toronto for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation returned a current value assessment of $597,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $530,000 and $540,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable properties, renovations, and locational issues, finding that the correct current value was $652,000.

The Board also found no justification for an equity reduction.

Since the respondent did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $597,000.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property tax assessment for a Hindu temple, arguing that extensive travel and reliance on a lawyer caused the delay.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) because the appeal was not filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board also declined to extend time under Rule 17, noting that specific rules prevail over general ones, and that the underlying issue of tax exemption falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice, not the Board.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of its property assessment appeals, which had been dismissed for failure to serve Statements of Issues on time.

The dismissal order was issued during the retroactive period of the provincial COVID-19 Emergency Order (O. Reg. 73/20), which suspended limitation periods.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error because the Board had publicly stated it would not adjudicate requests to dismiss during the Emergency Order.

The appeals were reinstated without conditions.

The moving party, Ploutos Holdings Inc., brought a motion to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party argued that it missed the deadline and subsequently experienced communication issues with the Board when attempting to request an extension.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving party was entitled to receive the notice of assessment, there was no evidence that it failed to receive the notice, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 26(b) for accepting a late appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property with a commercial component in Sault Ste.

Marie for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, as well as omitted assessments for 2017 to 2019.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, finding the value to be $2,381,000.

The Board also found that the omitted assessments should be reduced to zero to avoid double counting, as the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's evidence of current value already included the areas covered by the omitted assessments.

Finally, the Board concluded that no equitable reduction of the current value was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Requestor sought to reinstate its property assessment appeals for the 2012 and 2016 taxation cycles, which had been dismissed for failure to serve Statements of Issues in accordance with the Schedules of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the reinstatement for the 2012 cycle appeals because the Requestor served the required Statement of Issues within the 14-day response period following the request to dismiss.

However, the Board declined to reinstate the 2016 cycle appeals, as the Requestor failed to serve the Statement of Issues within the response period and provided no explanation for the delay.

Wal-Mart brought a motion to file an additional expert report on fair market rent after the deadline in the Schedule of Events had passed.

The report had been prepared by MPAC for a different property.

Wal-Mart argued that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the late filing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances and noting that admitting the late report would cause significant prejudice to the other parties by requiring further expert testimony and delaying the scheduled hearing.

The appellants appealed property assessments under the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act.

The parties requested procedural orders to alter the timelines and revert the appeals to the general stream Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the revised requests on consent, extending the timelines for expert reports and scheduling a settlement conference.

The Municipal Act applications were dismissed on consent.

The moving party requested that the Assessment Review Board accept late appeals for the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The moving party argued that they intended to appeal the property taxes indefinitely following a 2016 appeal.

The Board found that no deemed appeals were created for subsequent taxation years because 2017 was the start of a new taxation cycle.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) to accept a late appeal, as there was no evidence they did not receive the notices of assessment.

The motion was denied.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction or cancellation of property taxes for the 2019 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The matter was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing teleconference.

Rather than dismissing the application, the Board adjourned the pre-hearing to a new date, noting that the applicant had submitted documentation and expressed interest in a written hearing.

The Board ordered that the rescheduled pre-hearing be peremptory on the applicant.

The moving party, a corporate property owner, brought a motion to file a late assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment upon receiving a tax bill.

Within 30 days of becoming aware, the moving party erroneously filed a request for reconsideration instead of a request to extend time to file an appeal.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) and that treating the request for reconsideration as an appeal was consistent with the principles of fairness and liberal interpretation of the rules.

The applicant filed an application with the municipality to cancel, reduce, or refund property taxes for the 2019 taxation year.

The municipality delegated its authority to hear the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board scheduled a pre-hearing teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application for non-attendance.

The Board granted the motion, finding the application abandoned, and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed her application to the City of Mississauga for a reduction or cancellation of her 2016 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant alleged several errors, including failure to suspend timelines during the COVID-19 emergency, failure to consider a loan, and misapplication of the legal test.

The Board found no significant errors of law or fact, nor any violation of natural justice, and denied the request for review.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2010 taxation year regarding a property in Ottawa.

The property had been severed, but MPAC relied on an incorrect legal description, resulting in the assessed person being taxed for property he did not own.

The assessed person consented to the motion, and the municipality took no position.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description constituted a palpable error that prejudiced the assessed person.

The Board granted the motion, extending the time for appeal and directing that MPAC be the appellant.

The City of Ottawa and the previous owner appealed the property assessments for two vacant lots in downtown Ottawa for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of the properties but disputed the equitable adjustment required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the Assessment to Market Ratio (AMR) method proposed by the current owner, preferring the Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) method used by MPAC and the City.

After filtering the comparable sales to those within the shoulder years of the valuation date, the Board determined a median ASR of 0.830.

This resulted in a reduced equitable current value of $8,500,000 for the subject property.

The moving party requested the reinstatement of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appeals had been dismissed in error after the responding party mistakenly included them in a request to dismiss a different party's appeals for failing to comply with the schedule of events.

The moving party had substantially complied with the schedule by serving its statement of issues.

The responding party consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found the appeals were dismissed in error and ordered them reinstated pursuant to Rule 122 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.