Scott McAnsh

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.

The moving party brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

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

The Assessment Review 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 the motion and directed that the appeals continue in accordance with their assigned schedule.

The taxpayers appealed the assessment of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $806,000 for 2017 and $757,000 for 2018.

The taxpayers argued for a value of $650,000, while MPAC argued for $757,000 for both years.

The Board rejected the time adjustment methodologies proposed by both parties, finding that sales of similar properties close to the valuation day provided the best evidence of value.

Based on comparable sales, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $750,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $750,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for two properties, primarily classified as managed forest, for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of its current value assessments, as its evidence did not support the values it suggested.

However, applying the regulated rate for managed forests under Ontario Regulation 282/98 resulted in current values higher than the returned assessments.

Since MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessments.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Trinity ERB Inc. for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a statement of issues by the deadline set in the Board's schedule of events and did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure was a clear and unilateral breach that prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for failing to serve a statement of issues by the specified date.

The appellant did not respond to the motion or appear.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to provide a statement of issues was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent abattoir for the 2016 taxation year.

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

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, noting that dismissal is an extreme remedy and there was no evidence before the Board to justify dismissing the appeals.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years due to the owner's failure to serve a statement of issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the schedule of events was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Finding that MPAC was prejudiced by the breach, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The taxpayers appealed the 2018 property assessment of their newly built home adjacent to a golf course fairway.

They argued the assessment should be reduced due to the nuisance of errant golf balls and a large easement benefiting the golf course.

The Assessment Review Board rejected an assessment-based market adjustment but applied a $50,000 'cost to cure' reduction for the installation of protective netting.

The Board declined to apply a further nuisance discount, finding the remaining impact was expected for a fairway property.

Finally, the Board removed $158,000 from the assessment to account for the easement, resulting in a final assessment of $1,192,000.

The moving party applied to have appeals created for the 2016 taxation year for properties in the City of Ottawa.

The moving party had filed timely requests for reconsideration for the 2015 taxation year, but MPAC did not respond until 2017.

The moving party filed 2015 appeals within 90 days of MPAC's late response.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2015 appeals were validly filed.

Because the 2015 appeals were not finally disposed of before March 31, 2016, the Board held that the 2016 appeals were deemed to have been filed under subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act.

The motion was granted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondents for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The respondents had repeatedly refused to permit an inspection of their property, in breach of two prior Assessment Review Board orders, citing that their dog had recently had puppies.

The Board found the respondents' non-compliance to be willful, significant, and entirely attributable to them.

Concluding that this was one of the clear cases where the extreme remedy of dismissal was warranted over a costs award, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Abacus Real Estate Investments Ltd. for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a statement of issues by the deadline set in the schedule of events and did not respond to the motion.

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

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC filed a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Lindsay Property Management for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The motion was scheduled to be heard in writing, but no materials were filed by any party, including MPAC.

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

Given the complete lack of evidence to support the motion, the Board dismissed MPAC's application and directed that the appeals continue in accordance with their assigned schedule.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to serve a statement of issues by the deadline set in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and indicated it did not intend to file one.

The Board found the owner in clear breach of the Rules, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's 2016 taxation year appeal because the owner failed to serve a statement of issues by the required date.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure was entirely attributable to the owner and caused prejudice to MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of residential property assessments for the 2014 to 2018 taxation years.

The moving party claimed he did not receive the assessment notices because they were sent to his former address while he was renovating the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Legislature removed the Board's authority to extend the time for appealing residential property assessments under the Assessment Act.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to meet the requirements for late filing under the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he did not update his address with MPAC and failed to prove the application was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.

The appellant, Hozalla Kabob Inc., requested the reinstatement of its 2016 property assessment appeal, which it had inadvertently withdrawn due to a misunderstanding of a settlement for the 2017 taxation year.

Although the request was filed outside the 30-day limit under Rule 122, the Assessment Review Board extended the time, finding minimal prejudice and a good faith error.

The Board granted the request and reinstated the appeal.

The appellant requested a review of a Board decision regarding the 2014 assessment of its shopping mall.

The appellant had previously reached a settlement with MPAC through a request for reconsideration for the 2014 taxation year.

However, a deemed appeal for 2014 was also created by operation of law.

The Board had subsequently issued a decision for 2014 based on a settlement for other taxation years, which the municipality had not agreed to for 2014.

The Board found that its 2014 decision was made in error and cancelled it.

The Board then determined that it had no statutory authority to set aside the 2014 request for reconsideration settlement, nor did the settlement constitute a palpable error.

Consequently, the Board resolved the reinstated 2014 appeal on the same terms as the request for reconsideration settlement.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced due to nuisances including an adjacent busy overpass and difficult access.

MPAC proposed a reduced value of $1,630,000 based on percentage reductions for these nuisances, but failed to provide evidence supporting how those percentages were determined.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof to establish the correctness of the current value.

As the appellants also failed to provide reliable evidence of a specific value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $1,651,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years for a property in the Township of Zorra.

MPAC argued the decision contained a significant error by reducing the 2016 assessment, which had already been corrected by MPAC to account for a land use restriction.

The Board agreed, finding that the previous decision effectively applied the land use reduction twice for the 2016 taxation year.

The Board varied the decision to confirm the corrected 2016 assessment value of $10,033,000.