Jean-Paul Pilon

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

The appellant did not respond to the motion.

The Board found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules caused prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party, owner of four commercial condominium units, sought leave to file late appeals for the 2018 taxation year.

The moving party did not receive the notices of assessment because the municipal property assessment corporation and the municipality had been sending mail to an incorrect address.

The moving party filed the motion within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party met all the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party, 183119 Canada Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the disclosure of eight sets of documents from MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for a car dealership.

MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the requests were irrelevant, disproportionate, or sought information already available.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding the moving party failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents and that the broad requests were not proportionate to the proceedings.

The moving party in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for documentary disclosure of a detailed residential sales report from MPAC.

MPAC had offered to provide the report for a fee, but the moving party objected to the cost and sought an order for disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the request for 99 property details was disproportionate and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, the Board noted that disclosure motions are intended for situations where a party refuses to disclose documents, not where they are available for a fee.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the appellant's breach was clear, egregious, and unilateral, and that it caused prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property tax assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The property owner submitted an affidavit stating that she was recovering from car accidents and her grandson failed to file the appeal on time.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the affidavit failed to establish that the owner did not receive the notice of assessment or that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant filed property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years regarding a property in Markstay-Warren.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled telephone hearing and did not properly request an adjournment or obtain the consent of the respondents.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals due to the appellant's non-attendance and failure to provide sufficient reasons for an adjournment.

The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought leave to file late appeals of omitted property assessments for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The tenant argued it filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments under Rule 26(b) because it had not received formal notices of assessment, and alternatively sought an extension under Rule 17.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the 30-day period under Rule 26(b) began when the tenant received the supplementary tax bills, not when formal notice was received.

The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 17 to extend the statutory appeal deadline set out in the Assessment Act.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years due to his failure to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules.

The self-represented appellant opposed the motion, indicating he was not computer literate and did not receive MPAC's email communications.

The Board denied the motion, finding that while the appellant failed to comply with the Rules, his non-compliance was not wilful and dismissing the appeals would cause him disproportionate prejudice.

The Board ordered the appeals to proceed under a revised schedule and directed that future service on the appellant be by regular mail or courier.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the Rules was a clear and egregious breach that prejudiced MPAC's ability to respond and manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to file late property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that previous appeals for 2014-2016 were only settled in 2019.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no evidence that the moving party failed to receive the notices of assessment, which is required to allow a late appeal under Rule 26(b).

Furthermore, the Board found no palpable error on the assessment roll that would justify extending the time for an appeal under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion for a determination that there were palpable errors in the 2017 assessment roll and sought an order extending the time for bringing appeals.

The corporation had missed the appeal deadline due to an oversight.

While the Board found that the roll did contain palpable errors, it declined to exercise its discretion under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act to extend the time for appeals.

The Board held that it would be unreasonable and unfair to reopen the roll when the corporation was entirely at fault for missing the statutory deadline.

The moving party, owner of hotel properties, brought a motion under section 53 of the Assessment Act for disclosure of information in MPAC's possession relating to other hotel properties.

MPAC did not object to the disclosure but required a Board order and confidentiality undertakings from the moving party's counsel and consultants.

The Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested financial statements, sales studies, and related documents, conditional upon the execution of the non-disclosure undertakings.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years because the appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, finding the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules caused prejudice to MPAC.

However, the Board denied the motion to dismiss the 2013 appeal because the property had changed ownership and the former owner, who remained a party to the 2013 appeal under the Assessment Act, was not given notice of the motion.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years due to the owner's failure to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the owner's breach was clear, egregious, and unilateral, and that it prejudiced MPAC's ability to respond and manage the case.

Consequently, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss a property assessment appeal because the appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant did not respond to the motion.

The Board found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules prejudiced MPAC and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their property, arguing it should be classified entirely in the farm property class rather than partly residential.

The Assessment Review Board found that subsection 19(5) of the Assessment Act applied to the entire 35.28 acres, including the non-farmable land and the residence, as the property was leased to a bona fide farmer and used for farm purposes.

The Board also found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving its proposed current value of $423,000.

Relying on the appellants' 2013 purchase price, the Board determined the current value to be $400,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeal because the owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the required deadline.

The owner did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the Rules was clear, egregious, and unilateral, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's 2015 and 2016 assessment appeals because the owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The owner did not respond to the motion.

The Board found that the owner's failure to provide a Statement of Issues was a clear and egregious breach of the Rules that prejudiced MPAC's ability to respond and manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board for a refund of property taxes paid for the 2017 taxation year, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant, who receives ODSP benefits and suffers from multiple illnesses, demonstrated that his monthly expenses exceeded his income and that he had no net income after basic liabilities.

The Board found that although the applicant had paid his taxes, doing so left him unable to provide for the basic necessities of life.

The Board concluded the applicant was unable to pay his taxes due to sickness and extreme poverty, and ordered a full refund of the $2,325 paid for 2017.