Paul Muldoon

The Assessment Review Board, on its own initiative and with the consent of the parties, ordered the reinstatement of 74 property assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years pursuant to Rule 123(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The property owner requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the 2017 current value assessment of his property at $661,000.

The owner alleged the Board erred by relying on flawed comparable sales, accepting an unsupported adjustment for the property's poor condition, relying on a level of assessment study, and failing to consider the relative increase in assessments.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have led to a different decision.

The requester filed a request to review a previous Assessment Review Board decision 435 days after it was issued, which was 405 days past the 30-day deadline set out in Rule 120 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The requester argued that confusion and ongoing discussions with the respondent justified the delay.

The Board found no compelling reason to extend the time under Rule 17, noting that the requester failed to provide an adequate explanation for the large gaps in time between taking steps to file the application.

The request for review was dismissed for being filed out of time.

The Requester sought a review of a 2013 Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals.

The request for review was filed over four years after the original decision.

The Board denied the request, finding that it could not review a decision for which no written reasons were issued or requested, the request was significantly out of time without a reasonable explanation, and the Requester failed to establish any breach of natural justice, false evidence, or relevant new evidence.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision, arguing that his property was subject to double taxation because he pays condominium fees for services usually provided by the municipality.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the presiding member made no error of law or fact.

The Assessment Act requires property to be assessed at its current value, and there is no provision to reduce the assessment of a condominium based on fees levied by the condominium corporation for common property services.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of her condominium unit for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $566,000 based on a square foot valuation model, with a 5% downward adjustment for the lack of floor-to-ceiling windows.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high compared to what she could sell it for.

The Assessment Review Board found that a further 4% downward adjustment was warranted because the subject property lacked an open balcony, unlike the comparable properties.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $543,000 for both taxation years.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the property assessments for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The requester alleged violations of procedural fairness due to hearing delays and disclosure issues, and claimed the Board made material errors of law and fact regarding assessment methodologies and comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the requester failed to present a convincing and compelling case that the Board erred in its weighing of the evidence.

The Requester, Allegra Homes Sheppard Inc., sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the subject property's assessment at $1,645,000 in the commercial property class for the 2012 taxation year.

The Board denied the request for review because it was filed more than 30 days after the decision was issued, without an adequate explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Board found that even if the request had been timely, it would have been dismissed on the merits, as the Requester failed to demonstrate that the Presiding Member made a significant error of law or fact.

The requesters sought a review of a Board decision that applied issue estoppel to their 2015 and 2016 property assessment appeals.

The previous decision had confirmed the property's assessment value, finding that the requesters were estopped from re-arguing the impact of potential industrial wind turbines on the property's value, an issue already decided in their 2013 and 2014 appeals.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant error of law or fact in the previous decision.

The requester sought to reinstate property assessment appeals that were dismissed after it failed to appear at two prehearings.

The requester argued it did not receive notice of the prehearings because the Board mailed notices to an outdated address.

The Board found that the requester had moved years earlier but failed to notify the Board of its new address, mistakenly believing that notifying the respondent (MPAC) was sufficient.

The Board held that parties have an implied obligation to keep their address for service up to date with the Board.

Because the requester was at fault for its failure to receive notice, the grounds for reinstatement under Rule 122 were not met.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The City of Pickering requested the reinstatement of four property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The appeals were withdrawn by the appellant despite notices of intention to seek a higher assessment having been filed by MPAC and the City.

The Assessment Review Board found that the withdrawal was a clerical error and contrary to Rule 72 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The request for review was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the subject property's assessment at $4,272,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Requester argued the Presiding Member acted outside his jurisdiction by conducting an independent investigation, ignored submissions regarding a comparable property, and erred in law regarding the equity test.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member properly weighed the evidence before him, did not conduct an independent investigation, and correctly applied the test for equity.

The requester sought to reinstate three property tax assessment appeals that were dismissed in error.

The appeals were originally scheduled to be heard on March 27, 2017, but an adjournment was granted to prepare Minutes of Settlement.

The appeals were subsequently dismissed due to a clerical error.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the requester, there was no objection from MPAC, and no prejudice to the municipality.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of their property.

They alleged the presiding member denied them natural justice and procedural fairness by refusing to qualify their witness as an expert, conducting an independent investigation into zoning by-laws, and misinterpreting the definitions of 'hotel' and 'motel'.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the presiding member's refusal to qualify the witness was reasonable given the lack of credentials, and that the member properly relied on the definitions submitted by the requesters themselves.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that classified its student housing property as multi-residential.

The requester argued the Board lacked jurisdiction for the 2013-2016 taxation years because the City failed to provide third party notice of the 2013 appeal under s. 40(9) of the Assessment Act.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review in part, ordering a motion to argue the issue to allow for full submissions from all parties regarding the validity of the 2013 appeal and the notice requirements.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the assessments of 14 residential condominium properties.

The Requester alleged that the Presiding Member was biased in preferring MPAC's comparable properties and erred in law by accepting MPAC's definition of encumbrance and comparing an affordable housing program to a mortgage.

The Board found no reasonable apprehension of bias and no material error of law or fact, concluding that the Presiding Member properly exercised his discretion.

The request for review was denied.

The applicants sought $17,215.54 in costs against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) following a series of property assessment appeals and a successful request for review.

The applicants alleged that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, and in bad faith by ignoring appraisal reports, failing to negotiate, and presenting misleading evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the costs request, finding that MPAC's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board noted that MPAC communicated regularly, made corrections to the assessment, and was not obligated to accept the applicants' appraisal evidence.

The requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error due to a mistakenly forwarded letter.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error, the request for reinstatement was made the next day, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the effective date of an omitted assessment under section 33 of the Assessment Act for a newly constructed commercial property.

The requester argued the Board erred in law by not applying section 34, failed to consider her evidence regarding the occupation date, relied on misleading evidence from MPAC, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding no convincing and compelling case that the presiding members made an error of law or fact, and that the proposed new evidence did not meet the criteria for admission on a review.

The original decision setting the effective date as January 1, 2014, was confirmed, subject to minor corrections agreed upon by the parties.

The Requester sought to reinstate an appeal that was dismissed after he failed to attend the hearing.

The Requester submitted that he did not receive the Amended Notice of Hearing because his mail redirection service had ended.

The Board found that the Requester was not given proper notice of the new hearing time and that refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

The request for review was granted and the appeal was reinstated.