Scott McAnsh

The appellant appealed the omitted assessments of two newly constructed commercial condominiums for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the units at $324,000 and $330,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation day.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as its sales evidence was either not comparable or too far removed in time, and its path to value relied on arbitrary component adjustments.

Because the appellant also provided no evidence of current value, and there was no previous uncontested assessment to revert to (as the units were newly created), the Board held that the appropriate remedy was to set the assessments at zero.

The omitted assessments for both units were reduced to $0.

The Township of Prince appealed the property classification of a residential property, arguing a portion should be in the commercial property class due to the storage and maintenance of heavy machinery.

In a previous decision, the Board agreed that a portion was commercial but left the valuation to be determined.

After a procedural history involving misplaced submissions and a review request, the Board determined the value of the commercial portion.

The Board found that half the value of the detached garage and one acre of the surrounding land should be apportioned to the commercial property class for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years.

Alignvest Management Corporation brought a motion to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years that were withdrawn in error by its agent.

The Assessment Review Board applied the three-part test under Rule 122(a) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Although the application was timely and the withdrawal was a good faith error, the Board dismissed the motion because Alignvest was not a party to the withdrawn appeals; the assessed person and appellant was CA/CS Ottawa General Partner.

The moving party, Minto, requested a review of a procedural decision that denied its motion to compel MPAC to disclose certain redacted third-party information.

MPAC argued that the Board's rules only permit the review of final decisions, not interim or interlocutory orders.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with MPAC, finding that the order denying disclosure was not a final decision as it did not determine the merits of the assessment appeal.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the request for review.

Metro Ontario Inc. brought a motion to compel MPAC to disclose rental information for comparable grocery stores that MPAC relied on in its Statement of Response.

MPAC refused disclosure under section 53 of the Assessment Act without a Board order.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the disclosure of the requested information for the specific properties relied upon, subject to the execution of non-disclosure agreements and after providing notice to the affected third parties.

The Board also granted an extension of the schedule of events, finding that the section 53 application constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for his property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

He did not challenge the valuation but argued he was exempt from taxation based on constitutional and pseudolegal grounds, claiming he was not a 'person' under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board identified the appellant as an Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant whose arguments were nonsensical and vexatious.

The Board dismissed the appeals as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought permission to file a late appeal of the 2018 property assessment for a vacant commercial lot.

The applicant claimed not to have received the notice of assessment but acknowledged receiving the municipal tax notice on March 1, 2018.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the applicant failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party, 2144944 Ontario Limited, brought a motion seeking an order to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to provide ten categories of documents for initial disclosure in a property assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding the requests overly broad, not proportional, and not tied to specific issues in dispute, as pleadings had not yet been filed.

However, noting the exceptional delay of nearly a year in issuing the decision on the motion, the Board found that the balance of prejudice favoured extending the time in the Schedule of Events and assigned a new commencement date to allow the parties to exchange pleadings and prepare for a hearing.

The applicant, a commercial tenant responsible for municipal taxes, sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment.

Although the applicant was entitled to receive a notice of assessment and the municipality failed to provide it, the applicant received supplementary tax bills in July 2018 but did not file its appeal until January 2019.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant became aware of the assessment upon receiving the tax bills and failed to file within the 30-day period required by Rule 26(b).

The Board declined to extend the timeline under Rule 17, noting the unexplained five-month delay, and dismissed the application.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss Fiera Axium Solar Limited's property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

Fiera failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and did not respond to the motion.

The Board found that Fiera's failure to comply with the Rules was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Toad Hall Construction Inc. for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found the appellant's breach to be clear, egregious, and unilateral, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of her property assessments for the 2009 to 2016 taxation years, arguing that personal stress prevented her from managing her tax affairs.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide evidence that she did not receive the notices of assessment for the years in question.

Under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, proof of non-receipt of notice is an essential requirement for granting a late appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeal for the 2016 taxation year due to his failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The appellant argued that a spreadsheet provided to MPAC in September 2017 satisfied the requirement.

The Assessment Review Board found that the spreadsheet did not meet the requirements of Rule 38 and was likely related to a different taxation year.

Concluding that the appellant's breach of the Rules was entirely attributable to him and caused prejudice to MPAC, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of his 2017 residential property assessment, claiming he missed the deadline because the assessment notice was sent to the wrong address and he did not receive the Board's emails extending the deadline.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it had no legal authority to grant a further extension.

Under the Assessment Act, a request for reconsideration is a mandatory precondition for appealing a residential assessment, and the Board can only extend the time for such a request if the application is made during the taxation year in question.

Since the application was made in 2019 for the 2017 taxation year, the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

CHEO failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the required deadline and did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that CHEO's breach of the Rules was clear, egregious, and unilateral, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a hearing set due to their failure to comply with document filing deadlines under the Assessment Review Board's new process.

The Board found that exceptional circumstances existed to permit late filing of documents, as these were the first appeals to proceed through the new process and involved multiple appellants and outside experts.

Applying the factors under Rule 84, the Board granted the adjournment, setting new dates for a settlement meeting, expert report exchange, and document filing.

MPAC brought a motion for an order to inspect the subject property, arguing that the costing of the property was in issue.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting that the only issue in dispute was the equity of the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the respondent's Statement of Issues only raised equity arguments, which rely on the assessments of other properties and cannot be resolved through an inspection.

The Board also noted that the length of time since the last inspection is not a valid basis for an inspection order.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $381,000 to $346,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation failed to meet its burden of proof to establish the correctness of the current value.

Using a bracketing method with comparable sales provided by the appellant, the Board determined the current value to be $358,000.

The Board also found no evidence that an equity adjustment was required, and reduced the assessment to $358,000 for both taxation years.

The moving party sought an order compelling MPAC to disclose eight categories of documents relating to the assessment of her property.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding the requests overly broad, not clearly relevant to any specific issue in dispute, and disproportionate at the initial disclosure stage.

However, noting its own exceptional delay of nearly a year in setting down the motion, the Board found exceptional circumstances and extended the time for the parties to exchange pleadings by assigning a new commencement date to the appeals.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's property tax appeal regarding a vacant unit rebate.

The respondent failed to serve any documents by the disclosure deadline and did not respond to requests for a mandatory settlement meeting.

The respondent also failed to file any materials or make submissions on the motion to dismiss.

The Board found the respondent in clear and egregious breach of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.