Scott McAnsh

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value was too high.

MPAC had increased the assessment based on self-reported renovations, adjusting the property's 'effective age'.

The Assessment Review Board found that comparable properties in the neighbourhood likely had similar updates and that the sales of those comparable properties indicated a lower current value.

The Board reduced the assessment for both taxation years to $445,000.

The appellants appealed three omitted property tax assessments for their newly constructed condominium unit, storage locker, and parking spaces.

MPAC had issued the assessments with an effective date of November 14, 2014, based on the developer's occupancy date.

The appellants argued they did not own the property at that time and that the assessed value should be lower because the developer failed to deliver promised features, such as LEED certification and electric car chargers.

The Assessment Review Board held that omitted assessments can only be effective against the owner from the date they actually acquired the property.

The Board also found that the purchase price paid by the appellants was the best evidence of the property's current value, as the alleged deficiencies did not fundamentally alter the value.

The assessments were adjusted to reflect the correct effective dates of ownership and confirmed at the values supported by the purchase price.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their residential property, arguing for a reduction from $1,994,000 to $1,772,250.

MPAC presented comparable sales evidence suggesting a current value of $2,358,225, but did not seek an increase to the returned assessment.

The Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $2,339,000.

Applying an equity adjustment based on the median level of assessment in the vicinity (92.6%), the equitable assessment was calculated at $2,166,000.

Because MPAC did not provide notice to seek a higher assessment under Rule 40(b), the Board confirmed the original assessment of $1,994,000.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a tax refund application that had been rejected by the municipality.

The Assessment Review Board held that it does not have the legislative authority to extend the 35-day timeline set out in subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for a declaration that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding the lot size of their property for the taxation years 2003 to 2013, and sought an extension of time to bring late appeals under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the lot size as 7,405.2 sq. ft. larger than its actual size due to a 1963 calculation error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the error was not 'palpable' because it was not plain and obvious, having gone unnoticed by the owners and MPAC for decades.

Consequently, the statutory precondition for exercising discretion to allow late appeals was not met.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's appeal of a $390,000 assessment for the 2015 taxation year, arguing it was moot because it had been replaced by a corrected assessment of $177,000.

The property owner opposed the motion and sought to set aside previous settlement agreements regarding supplemental and subsequent year assessments.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion to dismiss the appeal of the $390,000 assessment, finding it was moot.

However, applying section 40(26)(a) of the Assessment Act, the Board found there was a deemed appeal of the $177,000 corrected assessment which would proceed.

The Board declined to set aside the prior settlement agreements, finding no evidence of false pretenses or fraud.

The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought an order under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure to accept property assessment appeals filed after the statutory deadline.

The tenant did not receive the assessment notices from its landlords until months after the deadline, despite statutory requirements under the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the tenant was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it in time, and filed the appeals within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.

The motion was granted and the late appeals were accepted.

The taxpayers brought a motion seeking the disclosure of five categories of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of their residential properties.

The requested documents included Property Assessment Detail reports, lot size calculations, inspection notes, comparable sales analysis, and lists of comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board applied the relevance test under Rule 45 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, noting that the standard is strict relevance and proportionality, not a mere semblance of relevance.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the taxpayers failed to discharge their burden of proving how the requested documents were relevant to a specific issue in dispute.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his summer cottage for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, arguing the $92,000 assessment was too high due to the local economic hardship in Nakina and the property's indirect waterfront status.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property's current value was likely $100,000 based on comparable sales of waterfront cottages in the vicinity.

However, because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not seek an increase in the assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at $92,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of his residential property, arguing the value should be reduced to $755,000 due to nuisance factors such as aircraft noise, train traffic, and potential well water contamination.

The respondent MPAC maintained a value of $866,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's expert evidence as poorly explained and inconsistent.

After analyzing comparable sales, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $800,000 and reduced the assessments for both taxation years accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and deemed 2018 property assessment of his vacant, swampy land in Montague Township, arguing the $78,000 assessment was too high and should be reduced to $45,000 due to development limitations.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) defended the assessment using comparable sales of other swampy vacant land in the area.

The Assessment Review Board found that the comparable sales evidence supported the $78,000 valuation and that there was no evidence to suggest the assessment was inequitable.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The moving party brought a motion seeking permission for the late filing of a property assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the appeal was not actually late.

Because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) failed to mail its response to the Request for Reconsideration within the 180-day statutory deadline, the filing deadline was extended to 90 days after the notice should have been mailed pursuant to subsection 40(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appeal was filed well before this extended deadline and will be processed.

The moving party sought leave to file late appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years regarding a property assessment.

He did not receive the notices of assessment because MPAC mailed them to the wrong address.

He filed requests for reconsideration in 2017, which MPAC rejected as late.

The Assessment Review Board held that it lacked the statutory authority under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for filing a request for reconsideration because the application was not made during the respective taxation years.

The Board also found that Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure could not cure the failure to file a timely request for reconsideration, which is a mandatory prerequisite to an appeal.

The motion was denied.

The moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of an appeal regarding a tax refund under subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the interpretation of statutory time limits is a question of statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board found that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to extend the 35-day deadline, as it had not done so expressly in the legislation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked the authority to extend the timeline and dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.

The County of Wellington and the Township of Puslinch brought a motion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for bringing appeals for four properties, arguing they were improperly classified as farm or residential when they were used for aggregate extraction.

The Assessment Review Board found that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll, as the errors were inadvertent and mischaracterized the fundamental use of the properties.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for appeals, finding that the municipalities had the necessary information to appeal in a timely manner but failed to do so, and that altering the historical tax liability would be highly prejudicial to the taxpayers.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a residential property assessment for the 2016 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the property owner failed to file a mandatory request for reconsideration by the statutory deadline.

Under section 40(3) of the Assessment Act, a request for reconsideration is a strict precondition to filing an appeal for residential properties.

As this condition was not met, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their waterfront property, which was assessed at $541,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and accepted the appellant's quality class determinations over MPAC's, drawing an adverse inference against MPAC for refusing to detail its quality class assessment.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $500,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

MPAC brought a motion for an order to inspect the respondents' property, citing the length of time since the last inspection, quality of construction, and suspected business activity.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to provide a compelling, specific issue that an inspection would help resolve.

The Board noted that the request was not made in a timely manner and appeared to be a fishing expedition.

The appellant appealed the property tax classification of three properties with barns that had solar panels installed on their roofs.

MPAC had changed the classification from farm and vacant land to industrial and excess land industrial.

The appellant argued the change was prohibited by s. 42.3(1) or s. 42.2(1) of O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the solar panels were the dominant physical feature on the rooftops, not 'ancillary installations', and that the primary use of the properties was electricity generation, not agricultural.

The Board confirmed the assessments in the industrial property class.

MPAC brought a motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act asking the Assessment Review Board to create late appeals for three roll numbers comprising a conservation area, arguing that significant errors in the recorded lot sizes constituted palpable errors.

The Board found that the massive discrepancies in the recorded acreage were plain and obvious, and therefore qualified as palpable errors.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to create the appeals, noting that s. 40.1 is an extraordinary remedy meant to cure situations where enforcing the statutory deadline would be highly prejudicial.

Since the public bodies involved had statutory remedies they failed to pursue and provided no evidence of unfairness, the motion was denied.