Scott McAnsh

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 10-acre property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $456,000 based on its computer model but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC did not meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of the current value.

As neither party provided sufficient evidence to determine the current value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $460,000.

The corporate property owner requested the reinstatement of four property assessment appeals that were mistakenly withdrawn by its agent due to a clerical error involving a similar roll number.

The Assessment Review Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was filed by a party within 30 days and the withdrawal was the result of a good faith typographical error.

The Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the deemed 2014, 2015, and 2016 property assessment appeals, arguing that changes in the property's classification and assessed value meant the same general reassessment did not apply.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Assessment Act only requires the same valuation day to apply and the appeal to not be disposed of by March 31 of the taxation year for an appeal to be deemed.

The Board held that identical issues are not a condition for deeming an appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their 45-acre property, arguing it was assessed too high.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property must be valued as farmland under subsection 19(5.1) of the Assessment Act because the retired farmer owner continued to occupy the land.

After reviewing both the direct comparison approach and the cost approach, the Board determined the current value of the property was $200,000, reducing the assessment from $234,000.

The property owners brought a motion seeking permission to file late appeals of their property assessments for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for the 2015 and 2016 appeals because the mandatory statutory precondition of a timely request for reconsideration had not been met.

However, because MPAC had inexplicably processed a 2017 request for reconsideration, the Board found the 2017 appeals were filed within the statutory timeframe and accepted them, while also creating deemed appeals for 2018.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that was previously withdrawn.

The appellant claimed the withdrawal was sent due to a system or clerical error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was filed by a party within 30 days of the withdrawal acknowledgement and was withdrawn in error.

The Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeal, noting no prejudice to other parties.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of two property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn, claiming they were withdrawn in error based on a misunderstanding of a settlement agreement.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request because the application was filed significantly past the 30-day deadline under Rule 122 without a valid explanation.

Furthermore, the Board found that the appellant's failure to verify the assessed value before withdrawing the appeal was not a good faith error contemplated by the reinstatement rule.

Metro Ontario Inc. requested the reinstatement of two property assessment appeals that were inadvertently withdrawn due to a clerical error by its representative.

The representative, who also acted for the property owner, mistakenly included Metro's appeals in a withdrawal request intended only for the owner's appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the request met all the requirements of Rule 122(a) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was made by a party within 30 days of the withdrawal and the withdrawal was made in error.

The Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals, noting no prejudice to other parties.

The applicant requested the reinstatement of an appeal regarding a supplementary assessment for its property.

The appeal had been inadvertently withdrawn as part of a larger settlement, which resulted in the property being double-assessed for the supplementary amount.

The Assessment Review Board found that the withdrawal was a good faith error and that the application for reinstatement, although filed past the 30-day deadline, was timely under the circumstances.

With the consent of all parties, the Board granted the request and reinstated the appeal.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in 2015, sought to reinstate an assessment appeal for the 2015 taxation year that had been withdrawn by the previous owner.

The moving party had negotiated a reduced assessment for 2016 and expected it to apply to 2015.

The Board found that the moving party was a party to the appeal under the Assessment Act, the request was timely, and procedural fairness required reinstatement because the previous owner's unilateral withdrawal prejudiced the moving party.

The motion to reinstate the 2015 appeal was granted on consent of the other parties.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of her 2017 property assessment.

She had filed a timely request for reconsideration, but MPAC mailed its response to the wrong address, causing her to miss the statutory appeal deadline.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that its power to extend time under Rule 26(b) applies only when a taxpayer fails to receive a 'notice of assessment'.

The Board held that MPAC's response to a request for reconsideration is a 'notice of reconsideration', not a notice of assessment, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to extend the ultimate statutory filing deadline.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessments for two multi-residential properties in Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

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 its proposed current values, as its evidence using gross income multipliers and direct comparisons was flawed and unsupported.

Relying on the appellant's expert appraisal evidence, the Board determined the current values using the income approach.

The Board also found that similar multi-residential properties in the vicinity were assessed at 92.99% of their current value, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessments accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential property, which also deemed an appeal for the 2018 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $89,000 but reduced its estimate to $84,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued the value should be $55,000 due to the property being on a flood plain with an unfinished addition.

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 it provided no comparable sales supporting its figure.

As the appellant also failed to provide objective evidence to support his proposed value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $57,000.

The moving party applied for permission to file a late property assessment appeal under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The moving party failed to appear at the motion hearing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion due to the failure to appear, noting further that the Board lacks the statutory authority to alter the timelines set out in the Act.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of his 2017 property assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeal was not actually late, as MPAC had failed to mail its response to the request for reconsideration to the moving party's correct address.

Because MPAC did not mail the response to an address where it was likely to be received, the later statutory deadline applied.

The appeal was filed within this later deadline and was therefore timely.

A deemed appeal for the 2018 taxation year was also created.

The moving party brought a motion to permit its appeal of a 2016 property assessment to proceed.

The moving party had filed a timely request for reconsideration but did not receive MPAC's rejection letter until months after the apparent appeal deadline had passed.

The Assessment Review Board held that under subsection 40(5.1) of the Assessment Act, the appeal period does not begin to run until MPAC's response is effectively communicated to the taxpayer.

Since the moving party filed its appeal immediately upon receiving the emailed response, the appeal was timely and permitted to proceed.

The moving party brought a motion seeking permission to file a late appeal of their 2017 property assessment, believing they had missed the deadline after failing to receive MPAC's response to their request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board determined that because MPAC likely did not mail the decision letter, the statutory timeline was extended.

The moving party's application was filed two weeks before this extended deadline and was therefore timely.

As the 2017 appeal was not disposed of before March 31, 2018, a deemed appeal for the 2018 taxation year was also created.

The moving party sought an order permitting it to file an appeal of the 2017 assessment for four properties.

The moving party filed timely requests for reconsideration with MPAC but did not receive a response until after the statutory deadline for MPAC to mail its decision.

The Assessment Review Board found that because MPAC failed to mail the results within 180 days, the appeal period was triggered 90 days after the notice should have been mailed.

The appeal was therefore filed in time and the Board directed that the 2017 appeals, along with deemed 2018 appeals, be processed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owners' 2017 and 2018 assessment appeals on the basis that the owners failed to comply with a Board order requiring an inspection of the property.

The Board found that both MPAC and the owners shared fault for the non-compliance, as MPAC delayed in contacting the owners to schedule the inspection and the owners delayed in responding.

Given the mutual fault, the Board held that dismissal was an inappropriate remedy and instead ordered the parties to schedule an inspection by a peremptory date, noting that costs would be the preferred remedy for future non-compliance.

The moving party sought permission to file late property assessment appeals for the 2012 to 2016 taxation years, claiming he did not receive assessment notices because they were mailed to an old address.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party received effective notice of the assessments through his annual municipal tax notices.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to provide evidence that he filed the application within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.