Rick Limoges

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's dismissal of their application for a vacant unit rebate for the 2014 taxation year.

The City dismissed the application because it was received after the statutory deadline of February 28, 2015.

The applicants argued the application was delivered on time but misplaced by the City.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicants' timeline of events implausible and concluded the application was submitted late.

The Board dismissed the appeal, noting it has no statutory jurisdiction under the Municipal Act, 2001 to extend the deadline.

At the outset of the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to disqualify the appellant's proposed expert witness on the basis that the witness had previously acted as the appellant's representative in the same appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the witness had demonstrated partiality through his prior representation and could not meet the requirements of an impartial expert.

The Board disqualified the witness and granted an adjournment on consent to allow the appellant to retain a new expert.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of its scrap metal recycling facility, arguing it should be classified in the Commercial Property Class rather than the Industrial Property Class.

The appellant pointed to similar properties in other municipalities that were classified as commercial.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the crushing and baling of scrap metal constitutes 'processing' under Ontario Regulation 282/98, which places the property in the Industrial Property Class.

The Board also held that the classification of other properties is irrelevant to determining the correct classification of the subject property based on its actual use.

The appellants appealed their property assessment for the 2015 taxation year, arguing that their newly constructed home suffered from severe, incurable construction defects, including being built 14 inches below the required level, resulting in continuous flooding.

MPAC valued the property at $295,000 based on comparable sales of properly constructed homes.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's mass appraisal approach inappropriate for such a unique situation and accepted the appellants' submission that the property's current value should reflect only the empty building lot prior to construction.

The assessment was reduced to $48,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a former hotel that was converted into a student residence.

MPAC had assessed the property at $6,360,000.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the current value to $5,062,000 for the 2013 taxation year and $5,371,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Board also determined that the property should remain in the Commercial Property Class for 2013 and 2014, but be reclassified to the Multi-Residential Property Class for 2015, as the converted units met the definition of self-contained units.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a self-storage facility for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $2,768,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $1,900,000 based on replacement cost quotes, but failed to provide compelling evidence or allow a site inspection.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the assessment, finding the respondent's valuation report using the cost approach to be the best evidence of value.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a 60-acre vacant treed site, arguing that the value was overstated and the wrong land band rate was applied under the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC correctly applied the regulated rates prescribed for the applicable land band and that the assessed value of $104,000 was equitable and lower than the ceiling value derived from comparable sales.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a 28-unit townhouse development for the 2007, 2008, 2013, and 2014 taxation years.

The property was affected by a failing gabion wall along an adjacent creek, which required significant remediation.

The appellant argued for a nominal property value, citing the cost to cure, litigation risks, and entrepreneurial profit.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's appraisal evidence as unreliable and outside the expert's scope.

Instead, the Board accepted MPAC's income approach valuation and the City's engineering estimates for the cost to cure.

The Board reduced the assessed values by the subject property's apportioned share of the estimated remediation costs, resulting in a reduction of the current value for all appealed taxation years.