Jean-Paul Pilon

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the appellant for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Schedule of Events and did not respond to subsequent requests.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in clear and egregious breach of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, causing prejudice to MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving parties requested leave to file late appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years regarding a property assessment.

The moving parties argued they believed the resolution of a 2016 appeal would automatically apply to subsequent years.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) for accepting late appeals were not met, as there was no evidence that the moving parties failed to receive a notice of assessment or filed within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of her 2016 property tax assessment, claiming she did not receive the reassessment notice because it was sent to the wrong address.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration outside the taxation year.

Because a timely request for reconsideration is a statutory prerequisite for a residential property appeal under the Assessment Act, the Board could not accept the late appeal.

The moving party sought leave to file a late request for reconsideration and a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a request for reconsideration because the property was in the multi-residential class, for which such a request is not a statutory precondition.

The Board also refused to allow a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the moving party did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the hearing, the appellants agreed that the returned value of $346,000 was within their acceptable range of current value.

As the appellants consented to the respondent's opinion of value and took no position on the classification, the Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment on consent.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $300,000 rather than the assessed $360,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the cost and direct comparison approaches.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's direct comparison approach using two comparable properties to be the best evidence, yielding a value of $371,000.

Since MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $360,000 and dismissed the appeal.

In a property assessment appeal, the municipal assessment corporation proposed that its representative, an unlicensed property assessor, also testify as a witness.

The appellants objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals could perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.

The Assessment Review Board held that its Rules do not prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both an advocate and a witness.

The Board found that the specific rule permitting paralegals to perform the dual role was enacted to satisfy the Law Society's Paralegal Rules of Conduct, not to restrict unlicensed representatives who are otherwise permitted to appear.

MPAC brought a motion to determine whether an unlicensed representative, specifically an MPAC property assessor, could act as both an advocate and a witness in a summary proceeding before the Assessment Review Board.

The respondents objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals were permitted to perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.

The Board found that its Rules, the Law Society Act, and By-Law 4 do not expressly prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both a representative and a witness.

The Board concluded that an unlicensed representative may perform the dual role, declining to follow a previous Board decision to the contrary.

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to multi-residential, resulting in a substantial tax increase.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed 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.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment and failed to demonstrate that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC and a late appeal with the Assessment Review Board for the 2018 taxation year.

The owner missed the statutory deadlines because he misplaced the notice of assessment.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that misplacing the notice did not constitute extenuating circumstances to extend the reconsideration deadline.

Furthermore, the Board could not accept a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the owner acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property tax assessments for two properties associated with a nearby granite quarry.

MPAC assessed the properties at $422,000 and $412,000.

The appellants argued the properties should be assessed at zero because they were subject to a restrictive covenant limiting their use to residential dwellings solely related to the sustainable management of the quarry.

The Assessment Review Board found that the restrictive covenants constituted easements under section 9(3) of the Assessment Act.

Because the properties existed entirely for the benefit of the quarry (the dominant tenement), their value must be added to the quarry and their own assessments reduced accordingly.

The Board fixed the assessment of both properties at zero.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $417,000 but recommended a reduction to $379,000.

The appellants argued the value should be $220,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving its proposed current value, as its comparable properties were significantly different and sold well before the valuation date.

The appellants' evidence was also insufficient to determine current value.

Consequently, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $320,000.

The Board further held that an equitable reduction was not required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a penthouse condominium unit in Toronto for the 2018 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the current value at $778,000 but recommended a reduction to $731,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value due to ongoing deficiencies subject to a Tarion warranty claim and sought an equitable reduction based on lower assessments of units directly below.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $763,000, rejecting the appellant's argument that the value should be reduced by the cost to cure deficiencies covered by warranty.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

Since MPAC did not serve notice to seek a higher assessment, the recommended assessment of $731,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for two properties, primarily classified as managed forest, for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of its current value assessments, as its evidence did not support the values it suggested.

However, applying the regulated rate for managed forests under Ontario Regulation 282/98 resulted in current values higher than the returned assessments.

Since MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessments.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property assessment of their single-family residential bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $664,000 for 2017 and $631,000 for 2018, but recommended a reduction to $631,000 for 2017.

The appellants argued the correct current value was $598,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $663,130 based on comparable sales on the same street.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $618,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $5,705,082 but returned an assessment of $4,808,000.

The appellant argued the correct current value was $4,678,000.

The Board analyzed comparable bungalow sales and determined the current value was $5,675,696.

The Board then applied an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the value to $5,164,883.

Because MPAC did not serve notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the returned assessment of $4,808,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their condominium unit in Thunder Bay for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $929,000, while the appellants argued it should be $696,750.

The Assessment Review Board found that the direct comparison approach was appropriate but rejected MPAC's reliance on two resale properties that were inferior to the subject property.

Instead, the Board relied on four builder sales of comparable penthouse units, calculating a median time-adjusted sales amount of $402.50 per square foot.

Applying this to the subject property's 2,250 square feet, the Board determined the correct current value to be $905,625 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a farm property with a residence for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $465,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $364,000 and $394,638 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct comparison approach was more reliable than its cost approach, but excluded one of MPAC's comparable properties due to its shoreline feature.

Relying on another comparable property, the Board determined the correct current value to be $390,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction, finding that equity had been achieved based on the assessment to sales ratio study.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years for a property in the Township of Zorra.

MPAC argued the decision contained a significant error by reducing the 2016 assessment, which had already been corrected by MPAC to account for a land use restriction.

The Board agreed, finding that the previous decision effectively applied the land use reduction twice for the 2016 taxation year.

The Board varied the decision to confirm the corrected 2016 assessment value of $10,033,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 133.35-acre property in the managed forests property class for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $217,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on the lack of road access and the assessment of neighbouring properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to prove its current value assessment was correct, but determined the correct current value was $234,429 based on the regulated rate for managed forests.

Since MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at $217,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equitable reduction, finding that equity had been achieved.