Jean-Paul Pilon

The requestor sought to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board found that the appeals had been closed in error after minutes of settlement were signed for the 2017 taxation year only.

Finding that procedural fairness required reinstatement due to several clerical errors by the Board, the request was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

A deemed appeal for the 2020 taxation year was also created.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2017-2020 taxation years, arguing the value should be zero due to soil contamination on a nearby property.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence that any contamination remained or affected the subject property's value.

Using the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the correct current value was $205,918, but confirmed the returned assessment of $169,000 because the respondent did not provide notice seeking a higher value.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a landfilling site, arguing that a landfill gas to energy facility should be excluded from the land's valuation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the facility, which generates electricity from methane gas, is an environmental control activity used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Board also determined the facility qualifies as a 'gas collection system' under O. Reg. 282/98.

Consequently, the facility was excluded from the valuation, and the property's current value was set at $1,105,000.

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

MPAC returned an assessment of $598,000.

The Board reviewed MPAC's direct comparison approach and the appellant's arguments regarding property differences and equity.

The Board found the correct current value to be $600,500 based on comparable sales, and found no equitable reduction was required.

Because MPAC did not serve notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at $598,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The parties reached an agreement to reduce the current value assessments for all three years.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order on consent reflecting the agreed-upon reductions, with no change to the residential classification.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their property in Bracebridge for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The 2018 appeal related to an omitted assessment, while the 2019 and 2020 appeals related to regular assessments.

At the hearing, the parties reached a consent agreement to reduce the current value assessments for all three years.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order on consent reflecting the agreed-upon reductions.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the City of Brampton and property owners to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors resulted in the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium unit roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that palpable errors existed, it declined to exercise its discretion to correct them.

The Board held that the municipality's failure to file timely appeals was due to its own internal policy limitations and mismanagement, making it neither unreasonable nor unfair to enforce the statutory filing deadlines.

The moving party brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and property owners to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors involved the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that the errors were palpable, it declined to exercise its discretion to create appeals.

The Board held that the municipality's reliance on the assessing authority to correct the errors, rather than filing timely appeals, did not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting historical errors outside the statutory time limits.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built gluten-free flour facility for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $637,500 as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, preferring a direct comparison approach using four comparable properties and rejecting the respondent's reliance on a power of sale transaction.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the assessment to sale ratio of comparable properties did not justify a reduction.

The moving party, Soul Restaurants, sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Kitchener, opposed the withdrawal because they had indicated an intention to seek a higher assessment in their Statements of Response.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion to withdraw, finding that the Rules of Practice and Procedure permit a party in a general proceeding to seek a higher assessment and that the Board has jurisdiction to refuse a withdrawal request under such circumstances.

The Board also confirmed that MPAC has the authority to alter the assessment roll based on a change in opinion of market value during an annual assessment appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file late appeals for property assessments from 1996 to 2016, arguing there was a palpable error because the property was assessed as having an in-ground swimming pool when it did not.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-existence of the pool was a palpable error.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time to appeal, noting that the moving party had access to the property profile since at least 2012 and failed to review it.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party, who purchased a residential property in September 2019, brought a motion to file a late appeal of the 2019 property assessment, alleging material inaccuracies.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party was not entitled to notice of the assessment because they did not own the property when the roll was returned in December 2018.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file a mandatory Request for Reconsideration by the March 31, 2019 deadline, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time because the moving party was not the owner at the relevant time.

The appellants appealed the 2019 property assessment of their residential property and reached a settlement with MPAC.

At the hearing, the appellants brought a motion seeking to apply the 2019 settlement terms retroactively to the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, despite having failed to file valid appeals for those years after their 2017 Request for Reconsideration was closed by MPAC for being incomplete.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding it had no statutory authority under the Assessment Act to create or deem appeals retrospectively for years in which no appeals were filed.

The 2019 assessment was reduced on consent.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and the property owner for an extension of time to appeal property assessments for the 2005 to 2016 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the roll.

The errors involved the separate assessment of a recreation centre and dog grooming business that should have been exempt as condominium common elements.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the errors were not palpable because they were known to the parties for years and required extensive investigation to uncover.

The Board also noted it would not have exercised its discretion to correct the errors due to the parties' prolonged inaction and failure to file timely appeals.

The property owner brought a motion seeking reimbursement for over-taxation from 2010 to 2016, alleging MPAC incorrectly assessed her property as having seven bathrooms instead of three.

The Assessment Review Board treated the motion as a request to file late appeals.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order tax reimbursement.

Furthermore, the Board held it could not accept late appeals because the owner had not filed mandatory Requests for Reconsideration (RfRs) for the years in question, and the statutory deadline to extend the time to file those RfRs had long passed.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party missed the deadline to appeal following a notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the rule applies to a notice of assessment, not a notice of reconsideration, and the appeal was not filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the City of Brampton to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2011 to 2014 taxation years.

A municipally-owned cemetery had been erroneously assessed as vacant residential land instead of being exempt.

Although the Board found that the errors were palpable, it declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for appeals.

The Board determined that the Municipality was aware of the errors but chose not to file appeals in a timely manner due to its own internal policies and resource allocation, making it unreasonable and unfair to reopen the roll.

The Moving Party brought a motion to extend the time to file late property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Moving Party argued it did not receive the notices of assessment because they were sent to the wrong address.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the Moving Party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because it did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board also declined to extend time under Rule 17, concluding that the delays were unexplained and there were no unusual or extenuating circumstances to justify an extension.

IKEA brought a motion to dismiss the City of Toronto's property assessment appeals, arguing that the City's expert report improperly relied on confidential information from other proceedings, amounting to an abuse of process.

Alternatively, IKEA sought to postpone the appeals or obtain documentary disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expert's initial inclusion of the contested references was a mere oversight that had been corrected, which did not meet the threshold for abuse of process.

The Board also declined to postpone the appeals or order disclosure, but granted IKEA an extension of time to serve its responding expert report.

The City of Pickering brought a motion to alter the timeline in the Schedule of Events to allow it to file a late Statement of Response in a property assessment appeal.

The City admitted it failed to understand the Rules and missed the deadline, but argued it was unfairly excluded from settlement discussions between the property owner and MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a lack of understanding of the Rules does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' required under Rule 82 to alter a timeline.

As the City failed to file its response on time, it was deemed not to oppose the settlement reached by the other parties pursuant to Rule 39.

A request for costs against the City was also denied.