Jean-Paul Pilon

The appellants appealed the 2019 property assessment of their residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $999,000.

The appellants argued the value should be their 2016 purchase price of $830,000, while MPAC argued the property's value had increased due to renovations but agreed to a value of $952,000.

The Assessment Review Board used a bracketing approach with comparable sales to determine a current value of $990,023, but reduced the assessment to $952,000 as requested by MPAC.

The Board dismissed the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding the assessment to sales ratio was within an acceptable range.

Canadian National Railway brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing that three of its properties were incorrectly assessed as separate parcels rather than a single property, constituting a palpable error.

The Assessment Review Board found no palpable error for the years prior to 2013, as the properties did not abut and could be conveyed separately.

For the years after 2013, when the properties did abut, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief, finding that the moving party's failure to appeal in the normal course was due to simple inadvertence, which does not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting a palpable error.

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

The moving party's sole director filed a statutory declaration stating she did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment upon receiving a tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met the three-part test under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the director was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed a Request for Reconsideration (treated as an appeal) within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion to extend the time to file the appeal was granted.

The moving parties brought three motions to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years that were withdrawn in error.

The Board denied the first motion to add Alignvest as a party, finding that a party cannot be added to withdrawn appeals.

However, the Board granted the second motion brought by the correct party, CA/CS Ottawa General Partner, to reinstate the appeals.

Although the second motion was filed outside the 30-day window, the Board found that the original motion was filed on time, the error was clerical, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The third motion was dismissed as moot.

The moving party brought a motion to file late property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party was not entitled to receive a notice of assessment for 2018 because it was a tenant at the time the roll was returned and did not prove it was liable for taxes.

However, for 2019, the moving party was the owner, did not receive the notice, and filed a Request for Reconsideration within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, which the Board accepted as an appeal under Rule 26(b).

The motion was denied for 2018 and granted for 2019.

The moving party appealed its property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years and brought a motion for disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

MPAC consented to disclosing statements of net operating income, capitalization rates, and unredacted appendices, which the Board ordered subject to confidentiality agreements.

However, the Board denied the moving party's requests for lists of sales considered but rejected by MPAC and subsequent capitalization rate analyses, finding these requests overly broad, imprecise, and lacking established relevance or proportionality.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $936,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed deemed appeals for 2016 and 2017 because the appellant failed to file the mandatory Requests for Reconsideration.

For the 2018 and 2019 years, the Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and found that the two most comparable properties had adjusted sale prices of $821,438 and $640,288.

Taking the median of these two properties, the Board reduced the current value assessment of the subject property to $731,000.

The moving party, Jay Patry Enterprises Inc., brought a motion seeking documentary disclosure from MPAC in a property assessment appeal.

MPAC agreed to produce some documents but argued that it was statutorily prohibited from disclosing third-party rent rolls and income/expense information without consent or a Board order.

The Board ordered the disclosure of the relevant third-party financial information, subject to the execution of a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement restricting access to the moving party's lawyers and consultants.

The Board denied the request for documents related to fair market rent adjustments that MPAC no longer relied upon, except for four properties used for corroboration.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring appeals regarding the assessment of two properties operating as a hydro-electric generating station, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.

The moving party claimed it was subjected to double taxation by paying both municipal property taxes and the Gross Revenue Charge.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged errors were not palpable.

The Board noted that the moving party had previously withdrawn appeals for the same taxation years, the errors were not plain and obvious, and the failure to pursue the appeals earlier constituted an error in judgment rather than an inadvertent mistake.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a property assessment.

Because the property was in the residential tax class, the Board treated the motion as a request to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act.

Finding that the moving party's late receipt of the notice of assessment constituted extenuating circumstances, the Board granted the extension and allowed 30 days to file the RfR.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to file a late appeal of their property assessment for the 2017 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they had received the notice of assessment and did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to file property assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2018 taxation years.

The property was in the residential tax class, which requires a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) as a precondition to an appeal.

The moving party had not filed RfRs for those years.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act to extend the time to file an RfR because such a request must be made during the taxation year in question.

Consequently, the motion to extend time to file the appeals was dismissed.

The moving party, a property manager, brought a motion to extend the time to file a property assessment appeal for the 2018 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the property manager was not a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment under the Assessment Act, and therefore did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to provide the date she became aware of the assessment, making it impossible to determine if the appeal was filed within the required 30-day window.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year regarding a property in Hamilton.

The moving party argued they did not receive the notice of assessment because they were a bare trustee prior to the property's conveyance.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party met the first two requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, they failed to provide evidence that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

Consequently, the motion to extend time was denied.

The moving party filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that he did not receive the 2019 notice of assessment and only became aware of the increased assessment upon receiving his 2019 tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met all the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he 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, 2662537 Ontario Ltd., sought an extension of time to file a property tax assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to commercial, tripling the tax bill.

The moving party did not receive the notice of assessment because it was sent to the previous owner.

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

The motion to extend time was granted.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and to amend it in an ongoing property assessment appeal.

The City argued that staff turnover and a period without an assessment analyst constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor the appeal timelines, which did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would significantly prejudice the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and a subsequent amendment to its RSOI in a property assessment appeal.

The City argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to a gap in staffing and unfamiliarity with the file.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor timelines, which did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.