Joseph Jebreen

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential property, which also deemed an appeal for the 2018 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $89,000 but reduced its estimate to $84,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued the value should be $55,000 due to the property being on a flood plain with an unfinished addition.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as it provided no comparable sales supporting its figure.

As the appellant also failed to provide objective evidence to support his proposed value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $57,000.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessments for two multi-residential properties in Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of its proposed current values, as its evidence using gross income multipliers and direct comparisons was flawed and unsupported.

Relying on the appellant's expert appraisal evidence, the Board determined the current values using the income approach.

The Board also found that similar multi-residential properties in the vicinity were assessed at 92.99% of their current value, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessments accordingly.

The moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of an appeal regarding a tax refund under subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the interpretation of statutory time limits is a question of statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board found that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to extend the 35-day deadline, as it had not done so expressly in the legislation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked the authority to extend the timeline and dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.

The appellant appealed the property tax classification of three properties with barns that had solar panels installed on their roofs.

MPAC had changed the classification from farm and vacant land to industrial and excess land industrial.

The appellant argued the change was prohibited by s. 42.3(1) or s. 42.2(1) of O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the solar panels were the dominant physical feature on the rooftops, not 'ancillary installations', and that the primary use of the properties was electricity generation, not agricultural.

The Board confirmed the assessments in the industrial property class.