Scott McAnsh

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to multi-residential, resulting in a substantial tax increase.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment and failed to demonstrate that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC and a late appeal with the Assessment Review Board for the 2018 taxation year.

The owner missed the statutory deadlines because he misplaced the notice of assessment.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that misplacing the notice did not constitute extenuating circumstances to extend the reconsideration deadline.

Furthermore, the Board could not accept a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the owner acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board considered the request under Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires the applicant to prove they were entitled to notice, did not receive it, and attempted to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues.

The Board found that the moving party failed to prove he did not receive the notice of assessment and failed to file the application in a timely manner.

The application for a late appeal was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the respondent's property assessment appeals for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxation years.

Despite being assigned filing deadlines, no party filed any materials with the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed MPAC's motion, holding that dismissal is an extreme remedy and there was no evidence before the Board to justify dismissing the appeals.

The moving party (City) brought a motion for a retroactive extension of time to serve its disclosure materials in a property tax assessment appeal.

The City missed the deadline due to a staff member's retirement and unfamiliarity with the summary proceeding schedule.

The Board found these constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board also found that the balance of prejudice favoured granting the extension, as the respondent had ample time to prepare and the City would be unable to present its case without the extension.

The motion was granted.

The applicant sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment.

The applicant had filed a timely request for reconsideration with MPAC but claimed it did not receive MPAC's response until after the appeal deadline.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because it had received its original notice of assessment and failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party had filed a timely request for reconsideration with MPAC but claimed it did not receive MPAC's response until after the appeal deadline.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had received its original notice of assessment and failed to file its appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment issues, as required by the Rule.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to dismiss the respondent corporation's application for municipal tax relief.

The corporation had applied for relief under a provision allowing relief for an applicant unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

The municipality argued that only human persons could experience sickness or extreme poverty, and therefore corporations were ineligible.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory definition of 'person' includes corporations, and while a corporation cannot be sick, it is capable of experiencing extreme poverty.

The Board concluded there was no legislative intent to exclude corporate applicants from seeking such relief.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by 1649050 Ontario Ltd. regarding a vacant unit rebate application for the 2016 taxation year.

The City argued the application was filed after the statutory deadline of February 28, 2017.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory filing deadline.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party property owner applied under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act to create late appeals for the 2006 to 2016 taxation years, arguing that MPAC made a palpable error by assessing her land-locked property as having road access.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect description of the property's access was a true, inadvertent, and palpable error.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for appeals, concluding that it would be unreasonable, unfair, and highly prejudicial to the owner to leave the assessment roll closed with such a significant error.

The property owner requested the reinstatement of her property assessment appeals, claiming she failed to appear at the hearing because she did not receive notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that a request for reinstatement under Rule 122 did not apply because the appeals were decided on their merits, not dismissed or withdrawn.

However, treating the request as a request for review under Rule 121, the Board found that proceeding without adequate notice was a breach of procedural fairness.

The Board cancelled the previous decision and ordered a new hearing.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals because the owner failed to serve its statement of issues by the Board's deadline.

The owner served the statement 69 days late, apologizing for misunderstanding the process.

The Board denied the motion to dismiss, noting that dismissal is an extreme remedy and inappropriate where the breach has been cured.

Although costs might have been appropriate, MPAC filed no evidence of prejudice, so no costs were awarded.

The moving party, a sailing club that leases land from the City of Toronto, sought to file a late appeal of its 2017 property tax assessment.

The club argued it did not receive the notice of assessment from the City until well after the filing deadline.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the club proved it did not receive the notice, it failed to establish a legal entitlement to receive it and failed to file the application for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by 2203284 Ontario Inc. for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

Despite being assigned a filing deadline, MPAC failed to file any materials with the Board.

The Board noted that dismissal is an extreme remedy that should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

As there was no evidence before the Board to support the dismissal, MPAC's motion was dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion on consent to extend the time for filing appeals for the 2006 to 2017 taxation years due to palpable errors in the assessment roll.

A condominium parking space had been assessed and taxed twice because of a historical conveyancing error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the double assessment constituted an inadvertent palpable error.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing appeals, noting it would be highly prejudicial to the property owner to leave the roll closed.

However, the Board declined MPAC's request to pre-judge the appeals and implement minutes of settlement before the appeals were formally filed.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment after missing the statutory deadline due to an error on its application to OMAFRA for the farm property class.

The Assessment Review Board found it had no statutory authority to extend the ultimate filing deadline under the Assessment Act and that the moving party did not meet the requirements for an extension under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The taxpayers appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for their 198-acre farm, arguing the value should be reduced due to a Flood Plain Overlay.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the overlay itself does not impact the farming use, the increased flood risk warranted a 10% reduction in the estimated sale value, resulting in a current value of $1,800,000.

Applying an equity adjustment based on similar properties in the vicinity yielded an equitable assessment of $1,652,760.

Because this amount was higher than the returned assessment of $1,261,000 and MPAC had not filed a notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their 98-acre farm.

The sole issue in dispute was the soil classification of 31 acres of farmland used for pasture.

The respondent classified the land as Class 5, while the appellants argued it was Class 6 due to shallow soil depth.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellants' evidence that the average depth to bedrock was 12 inches and agreed with their linear approach to assigning points for depth to bedrock under the valuation guidelines.

The Board found the 31 acres were properly classified as Class 6 farmland and reduced the assessments accordingly.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years because the owner failed to serve a statement of issues by the required date.

The Assessment Review Board found that the failure to serve the statement of issues was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure attributable entirely to the owner.

Finding that MPAC was prejudiced by the breach, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent company for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Despite being assigned filing deadlines, no party filed any materials with the Board.

The Board noted that dismissal is an extreme remedy that should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

Finding no evidence to support the motion, the Board dismissed MPAC's application and directed that the appeals continue in accordance with their assigned schedule.