J. Wyger

The appellant appealed a property assessment to the Assessment Review Board.

The appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation reached an agreement and submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The City of Orillia did not respond or participate in two scheduled hearing events.

The Board ordered that the Minutes of Settlement be accepted and entered without the municipality's signature.

The appellant property owner appealed the commercial vacant classification of its 31.45-acre parcel located within the urban boundary of Fort Erie.

The owner argued the lands should be classified and valued as 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act, as a local farmer had been cultivating the land since 2006.

The municipality and MPAC opposed, arguing the farming was an illegal non-conforming use and the property did not constitute 'farm lands'.

The Assessment Review Board held that the lands qualified as farm lands for the 2007-2012 taxation years, finding that actual farming use is the primary determinant for assessment purposes, regardless of zoning legality or future development potential.

The applicant municipality sought to apportion unpaid property taxes among 144 condominium units based on calculations provided by the respondent developer, rather than using a statement of relative value from the assessment corporation.

The Board held that under section 356 of the Municipal Act, it must first determine that an apportionment based on relative value is not appropriate due to special circumstances before it can apportion taxes in any other manner.

Because no statement of relative value was provided in evidence, the Board could not make this threshold determination.

The application was dismissed.

The City of Toronto applied to apportion unpaid 1998 and 1999 commercial taxes owed by a property developer among 18 current residential homeowners and two vacant lots in a townhouse development.

The homeowners objected, arguing they were innocent purchasers and the City had failed to adequately pursue the developer for the debt.

The Assessment Review Board found that special circumstances existed, including the retroactive effect of Regulation 399/03 and the City's inadequate collection efforts during amalgamation.

The Board concluded it was not appropriate to apportion the taxes to the innocent homeowners and instead apportioned the entire tax debt to the two vacant lots still owned by the developer.