Joanne Laws

The moving party, a registered charity, sought an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration regarding the commercial classification of its property for the 2019 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a Request for Reconsideration because the property was in the commercial tax class, making such a request optional rather than a prerequisite for an appeal.

Treating the application as a motion to file a late appeal, the Board denied the motion because the moving party failed to file it within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b).

The moving party, a registered charity, sought an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration or a late appeal regarding the commercial classification and assessment of its property for the 2019 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a Request for Reconsideration because the property was in the commercial tax class, making such a request optional rather than a prerequisite to an appeal.

Treating the application as a motion for a late appeal, the Board denied the motion because the moving party failed to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, having received a municipal tax bill containing the assessment information more than a year prior.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2019 taxation year, arguing it did not receive the 2016 Property Assessment Notice due to an incorrect mailing address.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party was entitled to and did not receive the notice, it failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as it had experienced a significant tax increase starting in 2017.

The motion to accept the late appeal was denied.

The moving party purchased a property in 2016 and sought to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) and file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The moving party had mistakenly faxed the RfR to the Assessment Review Board instead of the assessing corporation on the deadline in March 2017, and did not follow up until March 2018.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act, it only has authority to extend the time to file an RfR if the request is made during the taxation year in question.

Since the request was not made until 2019, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the extension.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of his waterfront property, which was assessed at $473,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $340,000, while MPAC recommended $408,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $347,000.

The Board further applied an equitable reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $329,000.

The moving parties sought to file late appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years regarding the assessment of their property.

The property's building had been demolished in 2017, but the municipality failed to notify MPAC, resulting in assessments that did not reflect the demolition.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration for 2018, as the request must be made in the taxation year.

However, the Board found extenuating circumstances for 2019 due to the municipality's failure to notify MPAC, and extended the time to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years regarding the classification of its property.

The moving party had successfully appealed its 2016 assessment, resulting in a partial residential classification, and assumed this would automatically apply to subsequent years.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party had received the notices of assessment for the years in question and failed to file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the classification, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration because the property was assessed in the commercial tax class.

The moving party purchased a vacant lot in July 2019 and sought to file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year assessment, arguing the purchase price was significantly less than the assessed value.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the moving party was not entitled to receive a notice of assessment because he was not the owner when the roll was returned.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration under the Assessment Act, as the moving party was not entitled to file one for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party requested to file late property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board scheduled a written hearing and set deadlines for submissions.

The moving party failed to file any motion material or affidavit evidence.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the motion for lack of evidence.

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

The property assessment notice had been mailed to an incorrect address.

The moving party filed the appeal slightly beyond the 30-day deadline after becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the time limit, finding that the moving party acted in a timely way to ascertain its tax status and that there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The moving parties sought permission to file a late appeal of their 2019 property assessment, having failed to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) by the statutory deadline.

The Board found that the moving parties did not receive the property assessment notice, which constituted extenuating circumstances under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act.

The Board granted an extension of time, allowing the moving parties 30 days to file an RfR with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

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

The moving party argued the appeal deadline was missed because the tax bill was received late.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as there was no evidence the notice of assessment was not received in a timely fashion.

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

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party failed to 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 file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The moving party, a religious organization, sought permission to file late appeals of its property assessments for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years following an omitted assessment.

The moving party argued its office manager did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notice.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(b) because the notice was correctly addressed and the motion was filed more than 30 days after the moving party became aware of the assessment via a tax bill.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential condominium unit for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $502,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $464,000 based on the builder sale price and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that the builder sale price near the valuation date was the best indicator of current value and reduced the assessment to $464,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction, finding no clear evidence that similar lands were assessed at a lower value.

The moving party sought permission to file late property assessment appeals for the 2009 through 2018 taxation years, and an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2019 taxation year.

The Board dismissed the motion for the 2009-2018 late appeals because the moving party had received the relevant property assessment notices, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b).

However, the Board found extenuating circumstances regarding a municipal tax misapplication error and granted an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2019 taxation year under s. 40(4) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Terrace Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $90,000 for 2017 and $89,000 for 2018 and 2019.

The appellants argued the value should be between $72,000 and $75,000 due to an economic downturn in the area.

The Board determined the current value to be $100,000 based on comparable sales, but applied an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the assessment to $87,000 for all three years.

The appellants' motion for costs against MPAC was dismissed, as the Board found no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of their 2019 property assessment, claiming they never received MPAC's reconsideration decision letter.

MPAC did not dispute the non-receipt but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline.

The Board found that because the notice was not received through no fault of the moving party, the secondary 90-day appeal deadline under section 40(5) of the Assessment Act was engaged.

As the appeal was filed within this secondary window, it was deemed timely and processed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family residence for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The parties agreed on a current value of $887,000, leaving the sole issue of whether an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the appropriate vicinity for comparison was the specific homogeneous neighbourhood (E60) and that similar properties were two-storey residential homes with a quality class of 6 to 7.

Applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 from ten comparable properties in that neighbourhood, the Board reduced the assessment to $798,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family residence for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The parties agreed on a current value of $887,000, leaving the sole issue of whether an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the appropriate vicinity for the equity analysis was the specific homogeneous neighbourhood (HGNH E60) rather than a broader area, and that a sample size of ten similar two-storey properties was sufficient.

Applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 from these comparable properties, the Board reduced the assessment to $798,000.