Scott McAnsh

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals because the respondent failed to comply with a Board order to provide documents by a specified date.

The respondent provided the documents late.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC suffered no prejudice from the late disclosure and that dismissal is an extreme remedy requiring clear evidence of prejudice, especially given the relaxed procedural practices under the previous rules.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order permitting an inspection of the respondent's property to determine its adjusted age and state and condition for the 2017 taxation year.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was filed too late and that a recent sale answered the primary issue.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the inspection was relevant to determining the value of the property following renovations, and that the motion was brought in a timely manner without causing prejudice to the parties.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals because the respondent company failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the date ordered by the Board.

The respondent provided the statement three months late, after the motion was filed.

The Board noted that MPAC had also previously delayed its initial disclosure by a full year under the former Rules.

Finding that both parties had breached the Board's rules or orders, the Board concluded that dismissing the appeals would be fundamentally unfair.

The motion was dismissed and the appeals were adjourned to be assigned a new commencement date under the new Rules.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to apply the legal doctrine of issue estoppel to property assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

A previous Board decision had determined the current value of the property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Board applied the three-part test for issue estoppel and found that the same question had been decided, the previous decision was final, and the parties were the same.

Finding no injustice in applying the doctrine, the Board granted the motion and applied the previous decision's valuation to the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

NAV Canada brought a motion seeking leave to amend its Statement of Issues for a second time and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

The proposed amendment sought to abandon legal arguments regarding nominal value for special purpose properties and shift to valuation methodology arguments, following recent appellate decisions.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion to amend, finding that NAV Canada failed to provide a compelling reason for the late change, having waited over a year after the relevant appellate decisions were released.

Consequently, the request for an adjournment was deemed moot and dismissed.

The Township of Prince appealed the property assessment for 326 Ironside Drive.

In a previous interim decision, the Board found a portion of the property was in the commercial property class.

The Township submitted that the entire detached garage should be classified as commercial and provided apportionment values for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years.

As the other parties did not challenge these values, the Board accepted the Township's submissions and apportioned the property assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a residential property in Toronto, arguing that MPAC failed to conduct an appraisal before returning the assessment and criticizing MPAC's methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found no legal requirement in the Assessment Act for MPAC to conduct an appraisal prior to assessment.

The Board accepted MPAC's direct sales comparison evidence, which supported a current value of approximately $490,000.

As MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $456,000.

The appellants appealed the 2013-2016 property assessments of their home, arguing the value should be reduced from $1,504,000 to $1,250,000 due to damage caused by a nearby municipal sewer construction project.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided no sales evidence or repair cost estimates to support a reduction.

Relying on the sales of six comparable properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board concluded the returned value was accurate and equitable.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments confirmed at $1,504,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their vacant residential lot, which was assessed at $35,000.

They argued the value should be reduced to $4,000 due to lack of road access, steep topography, and potential environmental contamination from its prior use as rail land.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was comparable to other vacant lots in the area that sold for approximately $35,000.

The Board rejected the appellants' arguments regarding access, topography, and contamination due to insufficient evidence impacting value.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed at $35,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their vacant residential lot, arguing the assessed value of $38,500 was too high and should be reduced to $22,000 due to a road traversing the land.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data of similar vacant lots and determined the current value of the property was actually $45,000.

The Board found no evidence to quantify the impact of the road or to support an equity reduction based on the comparables provided by the appellants.

Because MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $38,500.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his residential property, which was assessed at $250,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and should be reduced to $150,000, while the respondent recommended a reduction to $218,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and determined that the most comparable property indicated a value of $170,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $170,000.

The appellants sought a refund of property taxes for the 2013 taxation year, arguing that the Township overcharged them by assigning separate roll numbers to their cottages, which sit on a single parcel of municipally owned land.

The Assessment Review Board found that while assigning multiple roll numbers to a single parcel was a gross and manifest clerical error, it was not a typographical or transposition error eligible for correction under section 357(1)(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, the resulting change in assessed value was an error in judgment by the assessor, which is explicitly excluded from correction under the legislation.

The appeals were denied.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront home, which MPAC assessed at $559,000.

The appellants argued the assessment should be reduced because the home was under construction, lacked deeded road access, and was subject to two easements.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $650,000 based on sales evidence, but reduced it by 20% to $520,000 to reflect its unfinished state on the valuation date.

The Board further reduced the assessment by $30,000 to account for the two easements, resulting in a final assessment of $490,000.

The Board found no reduction was warranted for the lack of deeded road access.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront home, arguing the assessment was too high because the home was under construction, lacked deeded road access, and was subject to two easements.

The Assessment Review Board found the sales evidence supported a base current value of $650,000.

The Board reduced this value by 20% to $520,000 to reflect the unfinished state of construction on the valuation date.

The Board dismissed the road access argument for lack of evidence but granted a further $30,000 reduction to account for the two easements crossing the property.

The final assessment was reduced from $559,000 to $490,000.

The appellants sought a refund of property taxes for the 2013 taxation year, arguing they were overcharged due to a gross or manifest error by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

MPAC had reduced the property's assessment for 2014 based on corrected factual information, including the building's age.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the 20% overcharge constituted a gross error, it was an error in judgment in assessing the property rather than a typographical or clerical error.

As section 357(1)(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001 explicitly excludes errors in judgment from tax relief, the appeal was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking an order to compel Champlain Properties Limited to produce real estate listings and a third environmental study report for the subject property.

Champlain did not file submissions.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that under the new Rule 45, the standard for disclosure is relevance.

The Board determined that the real estate listings were relevant to the property's sale price and the environmental report was relevant to assessing the impact of contamination on the property's value.

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for a residential property, arguing the assessment was too high compared to similar properties with better finishes.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property was $263,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an 8% equity adjustment to align with the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $242,000 for both taxation years.

The moving party brought a motion in writing seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its representative planned to attend a conference.

The other parties consented to the adjournment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that accommodating a representative's personal schedule at a late stage did not justify an adjournment, and that granting it would undermine the Board's mandate to resolve appeals efficiently.

The Union filed a motion in writing seeking an adjournment of the hearing because its representative would be on vacation.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Union had known about the hearing for 50 days before filing the motion and that accommodating a pre-planned vacation at a late stage did not justify an adjournment, especially given the Board's statutory duty to hear appeals efficiently.

MPAC brought a motion to dispense with service on the assessed person, create new appeals for taxation years 1999 through 2016 due to a palpable error, and reduce the assessment to $0.

The roll number was assigned to a vacant parcel that was later developed into a condominium, but the original roll number was not deleted, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the double assessment constituted a palpable error and that dispensing with service was appropriate given MPAC's unsuccessful efforts and the lack of prejudice to the assessed person.