Paul Muldoon

The requester, Delta Hotels & Resorts, sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a teleconference hearing.

The requester's representatives did not receive notice of the hearing because the notice was sent to an incorrect address.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality consented to the reinstatement, and minutes of settlement had already been signed.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was through no fault of the requester and that there was no prejudice to any party.

The Requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a telephone conference call.

The Requester's representatives did not receive the notice of hearing because it was sent to an incorrect address.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality consented to the reinstatement, and the parties had already signed minutes of settlement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals, finding the dismissal was through no fault of the Requester.

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the assessed value of a property based on equity considerations.

MPAC argued the Board erred in law by excluding comparable properties from its equity analysis solely because they were located outside the municipality's boundaries.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review, finding that the Divisional Court has established that 'vicinity' in section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act is not strictly limited to municipal boundaries.

The Board's equity adjustment was reversed, and the assessed value was set at $806,387 without an equity reduction.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance.

The applicant filed an affidavit demonstrating that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement, noting that a settlement had been reached.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the dismissal was through no fault of the applicant and there was no prejudice to any party.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the current value of the subject property based on an equity analysis.

MPAC argued the Board erred by rejecting its equity analysis and ignoring earlier decisions regarding nearby properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the presiding Member's treatment of evidence and determination of equity were within their jurisdiction and did not constitute an error of law or a breach of procedural fairness.

The Requestor sought to reinstate several property assessment appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a teleconference.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-attendance was due to highly exceptional circumstances, specifically the representative's preoccupation with his mother's care during her terminal illness.

The Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, noting that dismissal would be disproportional and unfair to the taxpayer.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were withdrawn without his knowledge or consent by a representative of the Altus Group.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) did not object to the reinstatement and the parties had already agreed on a settlement pending the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed through no fault of the applicant, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice.

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

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the current value assessment of a property in Kingston.

The requester argued the Board erred in its application of the income approach by confusing net rent with gross rent, thereby inflating the property's value.

The Board agreed that the previous decision erroneously calculated gross rent, raising a convincing and compelling case that an error of fact or law occurred.

The request for review was granted and a rehearing of the appeals was ordered.

MPAC requested a review to reinstate an assessment appeal that was withdrawn in error.

The property owner and MPAC had reached a settlement on the quantum of the assessment.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review and reinstated the appeal, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the applicant, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice to any party.

The requester sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied a motion to withdraw appeals and strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the previous decision was an interlocutory order because it did not determine the substantive issue of the assessment quantum, and was therefore not eligible for review under Rule 141 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The requester sought a review of the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the assessed value of a property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The requester argued that the Board misconstrued his evidence regarding the property's deficiencies and improperly disregarded a 2014 sale.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the Board had broad discretion to weigh the evidence and reasonably preferred a 2011 open market sale over the requester's personal estimates and a 2014 sale that was priced for a quick sale.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $3,050,000.

Both parties agreed that the sales approach was the preferred method to determine current value and provided comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales and determined the current value of the subject property to be $2,428,000.

No further adjustment for equity was required.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The property owners requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value assessment of their waterfront property.

They argued the original member misapprehended evidence regarding comparable properties on a different lake and miscalculated the percentage increase in the property's value.

The Associate Chair found that the original member made factual errors and misapprehended the evidence, which could have affected the final outcome.

The request for review was granted and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant requested a review of two previous Assessment Review Board decisions regarding the assessment of his property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The first decision confirmed the assessment, and the second granted the respondent's motion for issue estoppel for the 2014 appeal, as the valuation day was the same.

The Board denied the request for review, finding no convincing and compelling case that the previous members acted outside their jurisdiction or made an error in law or fact.

The current value of the subject property was confirmed at $1,422,000.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a clean-up plan for groundwater contamination.

During ongoing settlement discussions, Freightliner and the City of London requested party status, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted party status to both entities for their respective sites and extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow settlement discussions to continue.

The applicants sought costs of $12,814.15 against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Municipality of Central Huron following a property assessment appeal.

The applicants alleged that MPAC's failure to disclose certain report data and the Municipality's failure to attend the hearing amounted to unreasonable and frivolous conduct.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the motion for disclosure had already been denied as irrelevant and disproportionate, and that the Municipality was not a necessary party whose absence prejudiced the hearing.

The threshold for awarding costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's Rules was not met.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value of their properties and denied their motion for disclosure of MPAC's raw data regarding the impact of wind turbines.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that the disclosure of MPAC's 2012 study data was not relevant to determining the properties' current value for the 2008 taxation year, as no wind turbines had been proposed or constructed at that time.

The Board also affirmed that the disclosure request was disproportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced their property's assessed value to $383,000.

They argued the Board relied on misleading evidence from MPAC regarding a comparable property and that new evidence regarding the property's condition should be considered.

The Associate Chair denied the request, finding that the original Member rejected the requesters' comparable property on multiple independent grounds and that the allegedly new evidence regarding quality classification would not have changed the outcome.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the assessed value of the subject property based on the average assessed value of comparable properties.

MPAC argued the Board erred in its interpretation of section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act by comparing assessments rather than the relationship between assessments and values.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the determination of equity is within the presiding Member's purview and that the original decision was reasonable given MPAC's agreement with the comparable properties at the hearing.