Jean-Paul Pilon

The 99-year-old applicant applied for a refund of her 2018 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had already paid the taxes in full and still retained a monthly surplus, significant equity in her home, and available funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board concluded the applicant was not unable to pay her taxes and dismissed the application.

The moving party in a property assessment appeal brought a motion seeking leave for its licensed paralegal representative to appear as both an advocate and an expert witness at the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the fiduciary duty of an advocate to resolutely represent a client is fundamentally incompatible with the duty of an expert witness to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

Given the significant and complex unresolved issues regarding the property's current value assessment, the Board concluded that the representative could not competently fulfill both roles.

The Appellant brought a motion to extend the timeline to file a Statement of Issues, and MPAC brought a cross-motion to dismiss the appeals for failure to comply with the Board's Rules.

The Board found no exceptional circumstances to justify extending the timeline, as the Appellant had missed the deadline by several months and failed to provide a valid excuse.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the appeals entirely, finding that summary dismissal was too extreme a remedy.

Instead, the Board ordered a peremptory hearing where the Appellant would be precluded from filing a Statement of Issues or relying on any new documentation.

The moving party brought a motion for further and better disclosure from MPAC regarding the determination of Fair Market Rents and Occupancy Codes for its property.

MPAC responded that the requested documents do not exist and that it had already provided all documentation in its possession.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, holding that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist.

The moving party brought a motion for further and better disclosure from MPAC regarding the adjustments made to the Fair Market Rents used to assess its industrial mall property.

MPAC responded that it had provided all documentation in its possession and that no further information regarding the adjustments existed.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC cannot be required to produce documentation that does not exist.

The moving party, 10 Yonge Inc., sought leave to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party argued it did not receive the notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 26(b) only applies when a party does not receive a notice of assessment, which the moving party acknowledged receiving.

The Board held it had no authority to extend the time to file an appeal in these circumstances.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their detached home in Toronto for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,065,000 for 2018 and $1,868,000 for 2019, later revising its position to $1,836,000.

The appellants argued the value should be $1,300,000 based on land value and construction costs.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable properties flawed due to significant differences in land size.

Relying on a mix of MPAC's most similar comparable and the appellants' land value evidence, the Board determined the correct current value was $1,765,404.

After applying an uncontested equity adjustment, the assessment was reduced to $1,636,500.

The Moving Party brought a motion for further and better disclosure from MPAC regarding the determination of Fair Market Rents and Occupancy Codes for the subject property.

MPAC responded that the requested documents do not exist and that it had already provided all documentation in its possession.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, holding that MPAC cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist.

The Moving Party sought an order to amend its Statement of Issues in a property assessment appeal after the filing deadline.

The Moving Party argued that a change in representation and the discovery of a missed issue regarding soil conditions constituted exceptional circumstances.

MPAC consented to the relief requested.

The Assessment Review Board found that the circumstances were extraordinary and granted the motion, allowing the Moving Party to amend its Statement of Issues and giving MPAC time to amend its response.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents opposed the withdrawal, having given notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change to the property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to seek a higher assessment and that the Board has jurisdiction to refuse a withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The Board also held that a higher assessment can be sought on an annual assessment appeal without a physical or legal change.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to alter the timelines set out in the schedule of events for property assessment appeals, citing exceptional circumstances.

MPAC argued that a change in the respondent's counsel and the late discovery of equipment requiring a new expert justified the extension.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay in retaining new counsel was unexplained and the need for a new expert arose from MPAC's failure to conduct a timely inspection.

The Board concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension of time.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their semi-detached home for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,368,000, while the appellant argued for $1,100,000.

The Board rejected both parties' comparable properties as being too dissimilar and instead bracketed the sale prices of one superior and two inferior properties to determine a base value.

Applying an uncontested equitable adjustment of 0.939, the Board reduced the assessed value to $1,121,000.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Ottawa, opposed the withdrawal because they intended to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment within their statement of issues, and that such notice can be issued on an annual assessment without a physical or legal change.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse the withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The Orangeville Agricultural Society brought a motion to file late appeals for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years regarding a property assessment.

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

MPAC consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure and granted the motion to accept the late appeals.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file an appeal and a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) regarding the 2017 property assessment of their newly purchased severed parcel.

The Board found that an RfR was a mandatory precondition to an appeal under the Assessment Act.

Because the request to extend the time to file the RfR was made in 2018, the year after the 2017 taxation year in issue, the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act to grant the extension.

Consequently, the motion was denied.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2018 taxation year, arguing it did not receive the notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure only permits late appeals when a notice of assessment is not received.

Because the moving party acknowledged receiving the initial notice of assessment, it failed to meet the strict requirements for an extension of time to appeal.

The moving parties brought three disclosure motions in property assessment appeals for three properties in Ottawa.

They sought disclosure of net operating income statements, capitalization rate studies, and unredacted expense allowances for comparable properties relied upon by MPAC.

MPAC opposed the requests on grounds of relevance, proportionality, and lack of notice to third parties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requested documents were relevant to determining the correctness of MPAC's capitalization rates and net operating income calculations, and that the requests were proportionate.

The Board granted the disclosure requests, subject to the execution of non-disclosure agreements, except for one request where MPAC confirmed it did not possess unredacted documents.

The Appellant appealed the Municipality's denial of his application to cancel, reduce, or refund his 2017 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the Appellant's income, expenses, assets, and liabilities for the 2017 taxation year.

The Board found that the Appellant had a net cash surplus and significant assets, including an un-locked RRSP, which could have been used to pay the taxes.

Because the Appellant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, the appeal was dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years because the appellants failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellants did not respond to the motion.

The Board found that the appellants' failure to comply with the Rules prejudiced MPAC and dismissed the appeals.

The moving parties, owners of hotel properties, brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a capitalization rate study conducted by MPAC using third-party sales information.

MPAC consented to the disclosure subject to notice to third parties, no objections, and the execution of non-disclosure undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board found the requested documents relevant and proportionate to the issue of determining the current value of the properties and ordered their production subject to the required undertakings.