R. Tchegus

The appellant, owner of a self-storage facility, applied for a vacancy tax rebate for the 2012 taxation year for self-storage units that were vacant for at least 90 consecutive days.

The City of Ottawa denied the application, arguing that the vacant units were "in use" as inventory for the self-storage business and therefore did not qualify as eligible property under section 364 of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding that the vacant units were not inventory but rather portions of real property capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

The Board held that the vacant units met all legislative criteria for the vacancy rebate program and ordered the parties to determine the rebate amount.

The appellant, owner of the Calabogie Peaks Resort, appealed the property tax assessments for four parcels of land for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The properties included a hotel, timeshares, and a ski hill.

MPAC valued the properties using the income approach, direct sales comparison, and cost approach, respectively.

The appellant argued for a much lower valuation based on a discounted cash flow and sum of the parts valuation, emphasizing the resort's financial losses and the cost to sever the parcels.

The Assessment Review Board largely accepted MPAC's methodology but made minor adjustments, reducing the hotel's value due to higher energy costs and reducing the timeshare values to remove GST from the sales data.

The Board declined to award costs to the appellant.

The appellant purchased a property previously used by the RCMP and left it vacant while attempting to sell it.

The City of Brockville increased the 2005 property taxes by $4,108.52 under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001, due to a change in property class from payment-in-lieu to fully taxable commercial.

The appellant appealed the City's decision.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City lacked the authority to initiate a section 357 application for the 2005 taxation year, as only specific parties (not the municipality's treasurer) could apply under the relevant subsections, and the statutory deadlines and notice requirements were not met.

The Board ordered the City to refund the $2,875.96 in realty taxes paid for 2005, plus interest.