Paul Muldoon

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that assessed her property at $2,511,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

She alleged procedural unfairness by MPAC and the Board, and argued the Board made significant errors of fact and law by preferring MPAC's comparable properties, quality class ratings, and time adjustment factors over her own evidence.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, and concluding that the original adjudicator's factual findings and weighing of evidence were within their discretion and did not constitute significant errors.

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that granted the assessed person an extension of time to appeal her property assessments for the 2006 to 2016 taxation years due to a palpable error.

MPAC argued the Presiding Member erred in law by misapplying the test for exercising discretion under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, specifically regarding reasonableness, fairness, and prejudice.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member applied the appropriate legal framework and reasonably concluded that it would be unfair and highly prejudicial to penalize the assessed person for not meeting the statutory filing deadlines given the circumstances.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the property assessment at $1,227,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The requester argued the Board made errors of fact and law in determining current value using comparable properties, identifying a land value sale, and conducting its equity analysis.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the presiding members did not make any significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision, as required by Rule 121(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the Board erred by failing to apply a $10,000 reduction for abutting commercial properties and a 35% reduction for shoreline and floodplain characteristics.

The Associate Chair found no error regarding the $10,000 reduction, as the original panel reasonably preferred the respondent's evidence.

However, the Associate Chair found a lack of clarity regarding whether the 35% reduction was actually applied to the final valuation, constituting an error that warranted a rehearing on the valuation issue.

The City of Toronto requested a review of a Board decision granting property tax relief to the respondent due to extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The City argued the Board erred by not including $800 in monthly family support as income and by finding the respondent was in extreme poverty despite having equity in her home.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no significant error of fact or law.

The funds were intended for the respondent's children and transferred to a trust, and the respondent's equity was reasonably considered inaccessible due to an ongoing family law dispute.

The moving parties brought three motions to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years that were withdrawn in error.

The Board denied the first motion to add Alignvest as a party, finding that a party cannot be added to withdrawn appeals.

However, the Board granted the second motion brought by the correct party, CA/CS Ottawa General Partner, to reinstate the appeals.

Although the second motion was filed outside the 30-day window, the Board found that the original motion was filed on time, the error was clerical, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The third motion was dismissed as moot.

The requester filed a Request for Review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that granted a 50% reduction in property taxes for the 2017 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The requester sought a 100% reduction based on new financial evidence.

The Board found that the new evidence could have led to a different decision and granted the request, cancelling the previous decision and ordering a new hearing before a different Member.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied her application for a refund of property taxes based on sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant alleged errors of fact and procedural fairness regarding the hearing's conduct.

The Board found that while there were minor factual errors in the original decision, they were not significant enough to change the outcome, as the applicant had sufficient equity in her home and transferred funds to her daughter.

The Board also found no breach of natural justice in the hearing member's questioning.

The request for review was denied.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were inadvertently withdrawn.

The requester had sent a withdrawal letter for several appeals but quickly realized two appeals pending settlement were included in error.

A revised letter was sent the same day, but the withdrawal was still processed.

The Assessment Review Board found the error was made in good faith, the application was timely, and the respondents consented.

The request for reinstatement was granted.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed his property assessment appeals as an abuse of process.

The original decision found the Requester to be an Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant who advanced vexatious arguments claiming a constitutional right to be free from taxation.

On review, the Board found no error in the original finding that the Requester was an OPCA litigant, nor did it err in refusing to hear the merits of his constitutional arguments.

The request for review was dismissed.

The City of Toronto requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that allowed a corporation, Bela Acres Holding Inc., to apply for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act due to 'sickness or extreme poverty'.

The Associate Chair granted the review, finding that the previous decision made significant errors of law in its statutory interpretation.

The Board held that a corporation cannot practically experience 'extreme poverty' or 'sickness', and that the legislative intent of the provision was to provide relief to individuals, not corporations.

The application for tax relief was dismissed.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the returned assessment of $1,618,000 for a residential property in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The requester argued the Board breached procedural fairness and erred in law by rejecting one of the proposed comparable properties and in its application of the equitable assessment provisions.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the original panel properly weighed the evidence, provided comprehensive analysis, and correctly applied the statutory requirements for determining equitable assessment based on the comparable properties submitted by the parties.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that denied her application for a refund of 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The requester argued the Board made significant errors of fact regarding her ability to pay the taxes, which were collected from her line of credit to cover substantial arrears.

The Board clarified the two-stage test for tax relief, requiring first a finding of inability to pay, and second, that the inability is caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Board found no significant error in the original decision, concluding the requester failed to establish that her inability to pay was due to sickness or that her circumstances amounted to extreme poverty.

The request for review was denied.

The requester sought a review of an amended decision by the Assessment Review Board regarding the property assessment of a residential property.

The original decision had reduced the assessment, but the Hearing Member later amended the decision to correct a calculation error, which increased the correct current value.

The requester argued that the amendment was a substantive change and prejudicial, and that the Hearing Member erred in relying on the respondent's evidence.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the amendment was solely to correct an arithmetic miscalculation and was neither substantive nor prejudicial.

The Board also found that the requester was inappropriately attempting to re-argue the merits of the original decision.

The self-represented applicant sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision on the basis that he did not receive notice of the original hearing.

The Board found that there was no evidence the applicant was at fault for failing to receive the notice, and therefore the deemed receipt provisions under Rule 30 did not apply.

Concluding that the failure to provide notice violated the rules of natural justice and deprived the applicant of the opportunity to make submissions, the Board granted the request for review and ordered a new hearing before a different panel.

The Requester filed a Request for Review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of a hotel property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Requester argued that the Hearing Member made a significant error of law by failing to apply a time adjustment to the hotel's 2015 actual room revenue results to reflect the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the Hearing Member did not simply adopt the 2015 results as the 2012 value, but rather used the hotel's stabilized performance to qualitatively determine where its Average Daily Rate should fall within the range of 2012 assessed values of comparable hotels.

No error of law or fact was established.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of their property at $1,122,000.

The requesters alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and significant errors of fact and law in the Board's valuation approach.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the original panel made no significant errors in weighing the evidence and determining the property's value based on comparable sales.

The applicants requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision, arguing that MPAC's evidence was unreliable and that the City of Brampton should not have participated in the appeal.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicants failed to establish any significant error of fact or law in the original decision.

The Board noted that the City of Brampton is a statutory party to every appeal under the Assessment Act and had a right to participate.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied property tax relief for the 2017 taxation year based on sickness or extreme poverty.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient net monthly income and significant assets, including a property worth over $500,000, to pay the 2017 property taxes.

The Board concluded there was no significant error of fact or law in the original decision and dismissed the request for review.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that denied their request to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration for the Conservation Lands property class.

The requesters missed the deadline because their mail was sent to the wrong postal code.

The Board granted the review, finding that the original decision erred in law by failing to consider subsection 40(4) of the Assessment Act, which allows the Board to extend the time for filing a request for reconsideration if there are extenuating circumstances.

The Board cancelled the original decision and granted the extension of time.