Paul Brennan

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had sufficient financial resources, including a positive bank balance and significant equity in the subject property, to pay the taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga to have their 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application because the applicants failed to comply with two procedural orders requiring them to produce sufficient financial documentation, including monthly credit card statements, to prove their inability to pay.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her waterfront residential property for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years.

MPAC had applied a 40% positive adjustment for waterfront properties that was previously omitted in error.

The Board found that MPAC had the authority to correct the error and accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis, determining the current value to be $2,904,000.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the final assessment to $2,279,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Brockville denying its application to cancel, reduce, or refund its 2021 property taxes for a property with an East Wing building that had suffered mould damage and disrepair.

The appellant argued the building was unusable and sought a tax refund under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the building was not damaged by 'fire, demolition or otherwise' as required by the statute.

The Board held that a property owner's neglect leading to mould contamination does not constitute an event similar to fire or demolition that causes physical damage.

The appellant appealed the assessment of his property, arguing it should be classified in the Farm property class rather than Residential and Conservation Lands.

The Assessment Review Board determined it only had jurisdiction to decide if the property was 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act, and not the classification itself.

After reviewing the appellant's uncontested evidence of farming activities, including raising livestock, selling eggs, and growing hay, the Board found that a portion of the property qualified as farm lands under s. 19(5).

The parties were directed to consult on apportionment and classification.

The appellant appealed the 2016 taxation year assessment of a unique waterfront property, arguing the current value should be reduced to $6,700,000 with a further equity adjustment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the correct current value was the 2012 sale price of $13,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2012 arm's-length sale of the subject property, which occurred four months after the valuation day, was the best evidence of its current value.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparable sales due to arbitrary, unquantified adjustments.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equity adjustment, concluding the correct current value for the 2016 taxation year was $13,000,000.