Joanne Laws

The moving party, owner of a property in St. Catharines, sought leave to file a late appeal of its 2019 property assessment.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that the notice of assessment was delivered to a neighbour's house in error and was not received until months later.

The moving party filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

MPAC consented to the late appeal.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requirements of Rule 26(b) were met and granted the motion to allow the late appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year, requesting a change in classification from Industrial and Commercial to wholly Commercial.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion because the moving parties failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving parties did not provide clear affidavit evidence establishing that they filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The moving party purchased a property and subsequently discovered outstanding property taxes resulting from a retroactive change in classification by MPAC.

The moving party did not receive the 2018 or 2019 property assessment notices due to them being mailed to the previous owner and a postal strike.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to file a late appeal under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party did not receive the notices and acted diligently to investigate the arrears.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the 30-day time limit for filing the late appeal, finding it fair and not prejudicial to the respondents.

The motion was allowed and leave to appeal was granted.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year, claiming they did not receive the notice of assessment in a timely manner because it was mailed to the wrong address.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the notice was mailed to an address owned by the moving party's signing officer, who was entitled to receive it.

The moving party failed to provide evidence that the notice was not actually received or when they first became aware of the assessment, thereby failing to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2016 taxation year under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party argued that he did not see the amended assessment notice until the spring of 2017 because he was out of the country.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because the notice was mailed to his address and he failed to monitor his mail, and he did not file the appeal within 90 days of the mailing of the notice.

The moving party, Hornepayne First Nation Incorporated, sought leave to file a late appeal of its property assessments for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The moving party did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notices because they were mailed to the physical address rather than the correct post office box.

Upon discovering the assessment changes via a tax bill, the moving party promptly contacted the relevant authorities and filed its request within 30 days.

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

The appellant appealed the MPAC property assessment of her vacant residential lot for the 2017 taxation year, arguing the returned value of $86,000 was too high due to steep topography, bedrock, and lack of services.

MPAC recommended a reduced value of $68,000 based on two comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's comparable sale of an un-serviced lot in a superior neighbourhood for $36,000 to be the most persuasive evidence.

The Board reduced the assessment to the appellant's requested value of $30,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of six farm properties in the Town of Leamington for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board had to determine the current value of each property and whether those values should be reduced for equitable assessment.

The Board determined the current values using a combination of the appellants' time-adjusted sale prices for the subject properties and MPAC's comparable sales approach, depending on the reliability of the sale data for each property.

The Board then found that reductions were necessary for equitable assessment, preferring the appellants' equity analysis based on adjacent similar properties over MPAC's broader regional analysis.

The appeals were allowed and the assessments were reduced.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for 51 residential condominium units for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's determination of the current value based on recent sales, it found that an equitable reduction was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

Comparing the subject properties to similar condominium units in the vicinity, the Board concluded the subject properties were assessed at a higher value per square foot and ordered the assessments reduced to $116 per square foot.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his 72-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $379,000.

The Board found that the property should be valued as farmland under section 19(5) of the Assessment Act, rejecting MPAC's alternative non-farm valuation.

Relying on MPAC's farm sales data, the Board determined the current value to be $370,000.

The Board then applied an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Act, finding that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at 90.3% of their current value, resulting in a final assessment of $334,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of three 50-acre farm properties for the 2017, 2018, and deemed 2019 taxation years.

The respondent assessment corporation had assessed the properties as Class 1 farmland.

The appellants argued that the properties should be assessed as Class 2 or 3 farmland due to the presence of Toledo Clay soil, which restricts crop production.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellants, finding that the Class 2 and 3 farmland designation was most appropriate.

The Board determined the current value based on comparable sales and then reduced the assessment for equitable purposes based on the lower assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

The appeals were allowed and the assessments were reduced.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their waterfront home in Leamington for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,063,000, while the appellants argued it should be less than $900,000 due to a lack of municipal services and the costs of maintaining a private road.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct sales comparison approach, using bracketing to compare the subject property to recent sales of waterfront properties in the area.

The Board found that the appellants failed to provide evidence quantifying the impact of the lack of municipal services on the property's value.

The Board concluded that the assessed value of $1,063,000 was correct and confirmed the assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home, arguing the assessed value of $347,000 was too high and should be reduced due to the proximity of cannabis production facilities.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence that cannabis facilities negatively affected property values.

Using the direct sales comparison approach and bracketing, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $323,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $323,000.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of his rural property, which MPAC assessed at $280,000.

The property included an occupied residence and an incomplete, uninhabitable building.

MPAC argued the incomplete building added value, relying on six comparable sales.

The appellant argued the assessment should remain at the initial $174,000 value because the incomplete building had no value until an occupancy permit was issued.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act, as none of its comparable properties had unfinished second residences.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $174,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 50-acre vacant farm land for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $631,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $500,000 based on the property's inferior soil and terrain compared to MPAC's comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable properties were superior to the subject property and accepted one of the appellants' comparable sales as a better indicator of value.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $550,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of a waterfront single-family home in Oakville, arguing the current value should be reduced from $10,127,000 to $7,978,320.

MPAC and the Town of Oakville argued the value was higher but did not seek an increase.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $14,972,000.

Because no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $10,127,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding the assessment was equitable based on the assessment-to-sales ratio study.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a single-family home in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value was too high and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value was $1,299,985, which exceeded the returned assessments.

Finding no evidence to support an equitable reduction, the Board confirmed the returned assessments of $1,272,000 for 2017 and $1,145,000 for 2018.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $2,072,000 to $1,700,000.

MPAC and the Town of Oakville argued the assessment was fair or should be higher.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $2,123,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted.

Because the determined current value exceeded the returned assessment and no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $2,072,000.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their seasonal waterfront property in Terrace Bay for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $314,000 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The Appellants argued the value should be between $150,000 and $180,000 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sales supported the $314,000 assessment.

The Board also determined that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not warranted, as the evidence did not show that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of his single-family detached home in Sudbury, arguing the assessed value of $277,000 was too high due to restrictions on the use of his side yard following a septic tank replacement.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found that the property's marketability was lessened by the land use restrictions and determined the correct current value to be $252,000, reducing the assessment accordingly.