Paul Muldoon

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that found a palpable error in the assessment roll regarding the square footage of the respondent's property.

The original decision extended the time for bringing appeals for the 2004 to 2011 taxation years.

On review, the Board found that the original member erred in finding the inaccurate square footage amounted to a palpable error under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Board held that a palpable error must mischaracterize the fundamental nature or legal character of the property, whereas an error in square footage is an error in judgment that should be addressed through a standard appeal.

The request for review was granted, the original decision was set aside, and the motion was dismissed.

The City of Toronto requested a review and cancellation of a 2011 Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of a property owned by Panterra Mansions Joint Venture Corp. The City discovered a 2007 Superior Court Order appointing an interim receiver for the owner, which stayed all proceedings against the debtor or the property.

The Board found that the assessment appeal constituted a proceeding against the debtor or property, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter or issue the 2011 decision.

The request for review was granted and the previous decision was cancelled.

The requester sought a review of a Board decision that dismissed its appeals regarding property tax assessments.

The requester argued that the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether a portion of its property was exempt from taxation.

The Board denied the request for review, confirming that questions of exemption from taxation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court, not the Assessment Review Board.

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

They argued the Board erred by admitting a map that breached disclosure rules and by relying on incorrect comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the admission of the map was a discretionary decision that did not breach procedural fairness, and that the selection and weighing of comparable properties fell squarely within the Board's jurisdiction.

No error of law was established.

MPAC requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision which found that the City of Oshawa failed to provide proper notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment for the subject property.

MPAC argued the Board made errors of fact and law regarding the service of the notice.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the issue of adequate service was procedural and fell squarely within the discretion of the original panel, and there was no convincing or compelling case that the Board made an error of law or fact.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 145 to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The Board cautioned that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to comply with a procedural order requiring notice of service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty,' recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the Board's updated rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not strictly meet the grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review the Board's decision dismissing its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board considered whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Although the Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to reinstate property assessment appeals that were previously dismissed for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future non-compliance.

The moving parties brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board reviewed the grounds for review under Rule 145, noting that the parties had been adequately warned of the consequences of non-compliance under the Board's new rules.

Although the Board found that the strict grounds for review were not met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not fully forewarned of how strictly the new rules would be enforced.

The appellants appealed two orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to secure, remove, and destroy PCB waste stored at their property, and to provide financial assurance.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a revised timetable for the appeal process and for proposed motions to strike a notice of allegation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order confirming the schedule for document exchange, motion materials, and the main hearing dates.

The complainant sought costs of $14,646.15 against the municipality following a settlement regarding a vacant unit rebate.

The complainant argued the municipality acted unreasonably by failing to disclose documents in a timely manner and refusing to meet prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the costs request, finding that while the municipality's conduct was less than satisfactory, it did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required under Rule 137, especially since the parties ultimately reached a settlement.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference to set a procedural order for the appeals, following the resolution of an issue sent back to the Ontario Municipal Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered a schedule for the exchange of statements of issues, productions, and examinations for discovery, and scheduled a further telephone conference call to review the status of the appeals.

The appellants sought costs of $2,744 against MPAC following a successful property assessment appeal and subsequent review motion that resulted in a reduced current value for their property.

The appellants argued MPAC acted unreasonably and in bad faith by initially returning an incorrect assessed value that was $738,000 higher than the final settled amount.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application for costs, finding no evidence that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith as required by Rule 137 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.