Paul Muldoon

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed after its representative failed to file a Statement of Issues due to an administrative oversight.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding no fault on the part of the assessed person and no prejudice to any party.

The requester sought to reinstate several property assessment appeals that were withdrawn due to an administrative error by the Board.

The Board had mistakenly processed a withdrawal request for all appeals filed by the requester's representative, rather than just those of another client.

Finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error and that refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice without prejudicing the respondents, the Board granted the request for review, reinstated the appeals, and deemed a section 40 appeal for the 2014 taxation year.

The requesters sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied a vacancy rebate for their self-storage property for the 2012 taxation year.

While the review was pending, the Divisional Court issued a binding decision in a similar case, clarifying that storage units are eligible for vacancy rebates if they are not rented to a customer.

Applying the Divisional Court's interpretation, the Associate Chair granted the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and found the subject property eligible for a vacancy rebate, directing the parties to determine the quantum.

The requester sought to reinstate a 2014 property assessment appeal that was withdrawn due to a mutual misapprehension between the parties.

The requester had settled with MPAC for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years but was unaware the 2014 assessment had also increased.

MPAC consented to the reinstatement and provided executed Minutes of Settlement for 2014.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the withdrawal was a bona fide error and refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

The appeal was reinstated and processed in accordance with the settlement.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that deemed section 40 appeals for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years and found a valid appeal was filed for 2014.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review, finding that appeals cannot be deemed for the first year of a reassessment cycle and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing the mandatory Request for Reconsideration for 2014.

The section 40 appeals for 2013 and 2014 were dismissed.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of an industrial warehouse property.

The Requester argued the presiding Member denied procedural fairness, applied the wrong test for comparable properties, and accepted unsubstantiated evidence regarding adjustments.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the Requester had an opportunity to cross-examine on the adjustment methodology, that industrial condominiums were sufficiently similar for equity analysis, and that the presiding Member's findings were properly supported by evidence.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision, arguing that the presiding members denied natural justice and procedural fairness by relying on cases not addressed at the hearing and making findings about the impartiality of MPAC employees without evidence.

MPAC also argued the members erred in law regarding the qualification of employees as expert witnesses.

The Associate Chair found that the request raised important issues requiring clarification and granted a motion to argue the grounds raised in the request for review.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of a waterfront property at $2,203,000.

The requester argued that the Presiding Member erred by not accepting MPAC's recommendation for a lower assessment of $2,070,000, by failing to address evidence regarding the property's classification, and by acting in a biased manner.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member had the authority to reach an independent conclusion on value based on the evidence, properly addressed the valuation issue, and showed no indication of bias or negligence.

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

They argued the Presiding Member exceeded jurisdiction, breached natural justice, and erred in law by accepting MPAC's adjustment evidence without requiring disclosure of the underlying raw sales data.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the requesters' representative had not requested the data prior to the hearing and that MPAC's burden of proof did not mandate unsolicited disclosure of raw data.

The Board concluded there was no convincing and compelling case to justify a review.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the subject property's assessed value to $0 due to environmental contamination.

MPAC argued the Presiding Member erred in law and exceeded jurisdiction by finding remediation costs exceeded the property's value without sufficient expert evidence.

The Associate Chair denied the request, finding the Presiding Member reasonably relied on both expert and lay evidence regarding remediation costs and stigma, consistent with Board jurisprudence.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years that were withdrawn in error.

The representative had mistakenly included the 2012 and 2013 appeals in a request to withdraw appeals for subsequent taxation years.

As neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the City of Toronto objected, and there was no evidence of prejudice, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the land value of a yacht club property.

The Requester alleged eight errors of law and fact by the Presiding Members, including the inclusion of water lots in land value, reliance on certain comparable properties, and findings regarding the club's lease.

The Associate Chair found that the Presiding Members properly weighed the evidence and made no material errors of fact or law.

The request for review was denied.

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a hearing.

The requester submitted that the non-attendance was caused by a sudden illness.

The Assessment Review Board found the non-attendance excusable and noted that neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality objected.

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

Waterloo University requested a review to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were erroneously marked as withdrawn and closed by the Board.

The Requester and MPAC had agreed on Minutes of Settlement that required the appeals to be active for execution.

The Associate Chair found that the appeals were closed due to a Board error and that refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

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

The Requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were previously dismissed after their former representative failed to attend multiple teleconference calls due to a personnel shortage.

The Associate Chair of the Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the Requester, the Requester intended to pursue the appeals, and there was no objection or prejudice to the respondents.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of a property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Requester argued the presiding Member erred in law by failing to apply the Managed Forest adjustment under s. 19(5.2) of the Assessment Act.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the calculation for Managed Forests is not a reduction applied after an assessment is confirmed, but pertains to the value of the land itself.

The Requester failed to provide evidence that the confirmed assessment did not accurately reflect the adjustment, and thus failed to raise a convincing and compelling case of a material error.

The Requester sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The presiding Member had dismissed the application on the basis that the relief was intended to be temporary.

On review, the Associate Chair found that because the Requester had been repeatedly granted relief for almost two decades without notice that the relief was temporary, denying it now would be contrary to the rules of natural justice.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and the Requester's property taxes were adjusted to $100 per year for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Requester sought a review to reinstate four appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a teleconference call.

The Requester's previous representative failed to attend because he was preoccupied with personal issues and confused by another cancelled teleconference call.

The Board accepted the explanation, noted that neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality objected, and found no prejudice to any party.

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

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value assessment of her property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The requester argued the presiding Member erred in fact regarding the cost of construction and relied on superior comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding no convincing and compelling evidence that any alleged factual error would have led to a different decision, and noting that the weighing of evidence is within the presiding Member's discretion.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate an assessment appeal that was inadvertently withdrawn by their representative.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Town of Cobourg consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding that the appeal was dismissed in error, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice to any party.