Maureen Helt

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a non-current value, the Board found it erred in its previous decision.

The Board cancelled the decision and ordered a rehearing to determine the correct current value of the property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a known non-current value when MPAC fails to meet its burden of proof, MPAC argued the Board made a significant error of law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in law by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was allowed, the prior decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, MPAC argued the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in law by not determining the current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Board decision that set the property assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, the Board found it had erred in law.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and ordered a rehearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying an adjournment request to retain counsel and by dismissing the appeals.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that the appellant had received adequate notice, had ample opportunity over two and a half years to seek procedural assistance or retain counsel, and failed to comply with the Schedule of Events.

The Board concluded there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

The appellant police officer appealed a 12-month demotion imposed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for giving inconsistent and contradictory evidence in a criminal trial.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by treating his refusal to accept responsibility as an aggravating factor and by failing to apply principles of progressive discipline and consistency of penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the Hearing Officer erred in characterizing the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor rather than the absence of a mitigating factor, it did not render the penalty unreasonable.

The Commission also held that the demotion was within the range of reasonable penalties and that progressive discipline is not required in every case.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference to reschedule settlement conferences regarding Notices of Intention to Designate for several properties in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The rescheduling was necessitated by the creation of the Ontario Lands Tribunal effective July 1, 2020, and the presiding member's departure from the Board.

The parties agreed to hold a combined settlement conference for both internal and external property issues on July 29 and 30, 2020.

The appellants requested a review of a Board decision that denied their motion to apply a 2019 property assessment settlement to the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants had not filed appeals for 2017 and 2018 after MPAC closed their requests for reconsideration for failing to provide requested information.

The Acting Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no errors of law or fact.

The Board held that sections 44(1) and 45 of the Assessment Act require an active appeal to reopen an assessment, and section 40(4) only allows the Board to extend the deadline for a request for reconsideration if the extension is sought during the applicable taxation year.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss several property assessment appeals because the appellant property owner failed to file a Statement of Issues by the required deadline.

The appellant argued the appeals should not be dismissed because MPAC failed to schedule a hearing, but provided no explanation for its failure to file the Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with Rule 24(e) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The owners of the subject properties appealed the Notices of Intention to Designate issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under the Ontario Heritage Act.

A pre-hearing telephone conference was held to establish a schedule for moving the matter forward.

The Conservation Review Board ordered the scheduling of two pre-hearing settlement conferences to address internal and external property issues, and set a six-day hearing schedule with strict time limits for the examination in chief of expert witnesses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical benefits.

The adjudicator found that the insurer complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's self-reports of impairment, the adjudicator concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and did not suffer from chronic pain caused by the accident.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the medical benefits were denied.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, having returned to work for five weeks immediately after the accident.

The moving parties, Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and MPAC, brought a motion to extend the time to file a request for review and to reinstate appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a settlement conference.

The parties had failed to attend the settlement conference due to a mistaken belief that it had been cancelled, and had already executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Assessment Review Board found that fairness weighed in favour of granting the reinstatement, noting the lack of prejudice and the fact that all parties supported the motion.

The Board extended the time and reinstated the appeals to allow the executed Minutes of Settlement to be processed.

The appellant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his request for an extension of time to file an appeal regarding the reclassification of his property.

The appellant argued the Board made an error of fact regarding when he received his Notice of Assessment and when he filed his appeal.

The Board found that the appellant became aware of the assessment on June 21, 2018, when he received his tax bill, and that he filed his request within the required 30-day period.

The request for review and the extension of time to file a late appeal were granted.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil/sediment remediation and brought a motion for a stay.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend certain compliance dates and sampling requirements in the Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, and ordered the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellants withdrew their stay motion without prejudice.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits, arguing they were statute-barred because the applicant failed to dispute a 2012 denial within two years.

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired in 2015.

Applying the discoverability rule and the Court of Appeal's decision in Tomec, the Tribunal found that the limitation period did not commence until the applicant was denied benefits based on his catastrophic designation, which occurred in 2017.

Therefore, the application was not statute-barred and the motion was dismissed.

The appellant requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that had been previously withdrawn.

The appellant withdrew the appeal before receiving notice of a supplemental assessment that changed the property classification.

The Board found that the appeal was withdrawn in error due to the unknown impending supplemental assessment.

Given the consent of all parties and the lack of prejudice, the Board granted the extension of time and reinstated the appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of a 2008 taxation year appeal that was dismissed in error.

The appeal had been inadvertently included in a request to dismiss other appeals for failure to comply with timelines.

The parties had already reached Minutes of Settlement for the 2008-2016 tax years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the error was reasonable, the request was timely upon discovery, and all parties consented.

The Board granted the extension and reinstated the appeal to allow the Minutes of Settlement to be fully executed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of three property assessment appeals that were dismissed after the parties failed to file executed Minutes of Settlement within the required timeframe.

The failure to file was due to an internal communication error at MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 31-day delay in requesting reinstatement was minimal and that dismissing the appeals would prejudice the appellant, who had agreed to the settlement terms.

The Board granted the extension of time and reinstated the appeals to allow the Minutes of Settlement to be filed.

The appellant, a police officer, brought an appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

Before the Commission rendered its decision, the parties advised that the appellant had retired from the respondent police service.

Consequently, the Commission determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and quashed the appeal.