Joseph M. Wyger

The City of London appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of zero for a residential property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property had previously been assessed at zero for the 2009-2012 cycle due to the presence of methane gas.

The assessed persons argued issue estoppel should apply to maintain the zero assessment.

The Assessment Review Board held that issue estoppel did not apply because the current value for the 2012 valuation year was a new issue.

Based on expert environmental and appraisal evidence, the Board found that while the methane did not pose a health or explosive risk, the property suffered from environmental stigma.

The Board accepted the City's appraiser's valuation, applying a 25% downward adjustment for stigma, and set the current value at $206,000.

The Board found no inequity requiring further adjustment.

Following an interim decision determining the total current value of the subject office building at $60,422,700, the Assessment Review Board issued a final order on consent of all parties.

The current value was rounded down to $60,422,000 and apportioned $55,348,430 to the office building (DT) classification and $5,073,570 to the commercial (CT) classification.

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be increased from $43.3 million to $84 million based on a 2014 sale.

The property owner argued the value should be $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

MPAC proposed a value of $70.9 million using the income approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither sale was the best evidence of value and applied the income approach.

The Board rejected arguments that surface parking constituted surplus land with development value, finding its current use was its highest and best use.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be based on a 2014 sale of $100 million rather than the returned assessment of $43.3 million.

The assessed person argued for a value of $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

The Assessment Review Board found neither sale was the best evidence of value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

Using the income approach, the Board preferred the assessed person's fair market rent of $14 psf over MPAC's $16 psf, and rejected arguments that the surface parking area had surplus development value.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The appellant filed a vacancy rebate application with the City of Pickering after the statutory deadline of February 28, 2016.

The City rejected the application as late.

The appellant complained to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that it has no authority to extend the statutory deadline for filing a vacancy rebate application under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to prevent the appellants from re-arguing the effect of industrial wind turbines on the assessed value of their farmland for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants had previously raised the same issue for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, and the Assessment Review Board had ruled that the potential for wind turbines had no impact on the property's current value.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, finding that the three conditions for issue estoppel were met and that there had been no change in facts or circumstances since the prior decision.

The assessments for 2015 and 2016 were confirmed.

The appellant appealed supplementary property assessments for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing that the value of post-purchase improvements had already been considered in a prior Board decision that set the property's value at $1.6 million, and that issue estoppel should apply.

The Assessment Review Board found that the prior decision did not address the value of the improvements, so issue estoppel did not apply.

The Board accepted the appellant's evidence that the improvements cost $223,000, adding this to the $1.6 million base value to determine a total current value of $1,823,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, and reduced the supplementary assessments accordingly.

The appellant challenged the property tax assessment of a three-storey Class 'A' LEEDS Gold office building located in a technology park.

The property was assessed at $19,013,000 based on a fair market rent of $18 per square foot.

The appellant argued for a fair market rent of $16 per square foot, relying on settlements of nearby properties formerly occupied by Research in Motion.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the subject building was superior to the appellant's comparables and that the actual sub-leases in the building supported the $18 per square foot rate.

The Board confirmed the current value as returned.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a rural industrial building for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $4,940,000.

The respondent MPAC recommended a reduction to $4,424,000 based on a statistical sales analysis, while the appellant sought a reduction to $3,570,000 based on an individual appraisal that adjusted for the property's remote location and structural deficiencies.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's nuanced appraisal approach, applying a downward adjustment to comparable sales to account for locational disadvantages.

The Board determined the current value to be $3,932,000 and found no inequity compared to similar lands.

The Appellants, owners of a multi-residential building, brought a motion for production of confidential information regarding other apartment buildings in the possession of MPAC, and for leave to amend their Statement of Issues.

MPAC consented to the amendment but opposed the release of detailed income and expense information for numerous properties, arguing it was unnecessary for an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board granted leave to amend the pleadings and ordered the production of full financial information for 19 specific properties, and standard assessment data for the remaining properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The appellant developer sought a refund of property taxes under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a plan of subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The appellant requested a pro rata refund based on the pre-registration assessed value of the entire parcel.

The Assessment Review Board denied the appeal, finding that MPAC had apportioned no value to the roads and reserves, and that the Board had no authority to assign a notional value based on a proportionate share of the pre-registration value.

The Board concluded that no refund of taxes was warranted.

The appellant developer applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a Plan of Subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The City made no decision, and the developer appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had apportioned the entire assessed value of the pre-registration parcel to the newly created building lots and assigned no value to the roads and reserves.

Consequently, the dedicated lands did not become exempt from taxation with an assigned value that would warrant a tax refund.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessments of industrial malls in Halton and Peel Regions for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The central issue was the appropriate capitalization rate to apply to the net operating income of the properties.

MPAC had originally used a 7% capitalization rate but revised it to 6.6% for appealed properties after reducing fair market rents.

The Appellants argued the 6.6% rate was incorrect and inequitable compared to unappealed properties that remained at 7%.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence supporting the 6.6% rate, finding that equity applies to the final assessed value rather than individual valuation components.

The Board concluded the 6.6% capitalization rate produced correct and equitable current values.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision determining the property tax vacancy rebates owed to U.S. Steel Canada Inc. by Haldimand County for the 2010 and 2013 taxation years.

Following an interim decision establishing eligibility, the Board quantified the rebates for the Main Plant and Pickling Plant.

The Board also determined the interest commencement date under section 364(20) of the Municipal Act, 2001, finding that the application was complete by October 20, 2014, when evidentiary requirements were met, making the interest commencement date February 22, 2015.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of a purpose-built student housing building containing 133 suites with 588 individually rented bedrooms.

The issue was whether the building should be classified as residential or multi-residential, which turned on whether the individual bedrooms or the entire suites constituted "self-contained units" under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board held that the physical layout of the building and the nature of the occupancy demonstrated that the 133 suites were self-contained units.

The property was therefore placed in the multi-residential tax class.

The Appellants requested an order to hold a motion under Rule 57 to compel MPAC to produce documents containing confidential financial information used to revise the capitalization rate for Industrial Mall properties.

The Board ordered that the production motion be scheduled and served by registered mail to the vendors whose information is sought.

The Board also scheduled a hearing event to adjudicate representative cases dealing with the capitalization rate issue.

The moving parties, owners of four properties, sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision.

They argued that a developer receiving tax grants based on assessed values should have filed a Request for Reconsideration (RFR) before appealing the 2012 property assessments.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the developer was not the legal owner of the properties in the 2012 taxation year and was not entitled to receive notices of assessment.

Therefore, the developer was not required to file an RFR and properly brought third-party appeals under section 40(9) of the Assessment Act.

The original owner of a hotel appealed its property assessment.

After selling the property, the original owner's agent improperly requested a withdrawal of the appeals, which the Board erroneously processed despite the assessing authority's objection and notice seeking a higher assessment.

Over two years later, the Board administratively re-instated the appeals without notice to the parties.

The new owner brought a motion to cancel the re-instated appeals.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to re-instate the appeals, doing so after such a long delay without notice or submissions was a denial of natural justice.

The Board cancelled the re-instated appeals, finding that the new owner would suffer undue prejudice by facing a potential retroactive tax liability for years it did not own the property.

The appellants, HLS York Developments Ltd and Metro Ontario Inc., sought leave to withdraw their property assessment appeals and to strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

MPAC had discovered that the parking garage income was substantially under-assessed and sought a 25% increase in the overall assessment.

The appellants argued that MPAC was using the Board's Rules to penalize them for appealing.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that section 44(1) of the Assessment Act permits the Board to reopen the whole question of the assessment to correct errors or omissions.

The Board concluded that MPAC's request was a bona fide attempt to correct an inadvertent error regarding the parkade's income, rather than an improper change of opinion, and that there was no prejudice to the appellants in having the appeals heard on their merits.

MPAC brought a motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act to correct a palpable error on the assessment roll.

Due to a series of property transfers and roll number re-assignments, the Chews had been incorrectly assessed and paying property taxes for a neighbouring property they did not own from 2009 to 2014.

The Board found that the error was inadvertent and palpable, as the roll plainly contradicted the legal title.

The Board exercised its discretion to correct the roll, removing the Chews and adding the true owners as the assessed persons for the relevant taxation years.