Scott McAnsh

The owners of a multi-residential building brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from MPAC relating to a residential complex.

MPAC did not object but required an order from the Board.

The Board found the complex to be near and reasonably comparable to the subject property and ordered full disclosure of income, expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and information relied upon in determining the Gross Income Multiplier, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

General Motors appealed the property tax assessments for its Windsor transmission plant for the 2009-2014 taxation years.

The plant operated until July 2010 and was subsequently sold as vacant land in 2014.

The Assessment Review Board held that for the 2009 and 2010 taxation years, the plant's highest and best use was as an operating factory, and valued it using the cost approach at $8,584,000.

For the 2011-2014 taxation years, the Board found the highest and best use was as scrap, and relied on the 2014 sale price to determine a current value of $6,348,000.

The Board rejected arguments that a restrictive covenant on the 2014 sale precluded its use as evidence of value, and found no inequity requiring further reduction of the assessments.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the assessment of two properties for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, arguing that assessing the properties under separate roll numbers when they could only be legally conveyed as a single parcel constituted a palpable error.

The respondent MPAC consented and brought a cross-motion for a third property.

The Board found a palpable error on the face of the roll and exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing the appeals, noting the prejudice to the moving party outweighed any prejudice to the municipality.

The Assessment Review Board brought a motion to determine whether Anthony Okafor had status to represent the appellant, Ogbu & Blius Engineering Inc. Mr. Okafor acknowledged he was not licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada but claimed the in-house legal services provider exemption.

The Board found no evidence that Mr. Okafor was employed by the appellant or met the exemption requirements.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board granted the motion and removed Mr. Okafor as the appellant's representative.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his seasonal recreational property, arguing that his lot did not extend to the water's edge and therefore its value as a waterfront lot was too high.

The Assessment Review Board found that it was bound by a previous Superior Court declaration, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the boundaries of the lots in the subdivision extended to the water's edge.

The Board rejected the appellant's arguments that the Surveys Act conflicted with the judicial declaration.

The Board determined the current value of the property was $340,000, which was higher than the returned assessments of $319,000 and $321,000.

Since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessments.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their detached house in Ottawa, arguing the assessed value of $468,000 was too high and inequitable compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and found the current value of the property to be $490,000.

However, because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not file a notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $468,000.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support a reduction based on inequity.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his rural residential property, arguing the assessed value of $545,000 was too high given its condition and his inability to sell it.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported the base assessment value.

However, the Board accepted the appellant's evidence that the roof required replacement and applied a $30,000 cost to cure adjustment.

The assessment was reduced to $515,000, with no further equity adjustment required.

The moving parties sought costs of $37,577.50 following a property assessment hearing where their assessments were reduced.

They argued the hearing was unnecessary and that MPAC acted unreasonably by failing to call a specialized wind turbine expert, omitting certain comparable sales, and making an inappropriate settlement offer.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith as required by Rule 138 and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront cottage for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC suggested a current value of $763,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant argued for $550,000, citing a neighbouring sale and encumbrances.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $763,000 based on sales evidence, but directed that the assessment must be reduced to account for an easement across the property pursuant to s. 9(1) of the Assessment Act.

The parties were directed to agree on the value of the easement reduction.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their lakefront cottage for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had originally assessed the property at $435,000 for 2015, but reduced its opinion of value to $413,000 following a request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence supported a current value of $413,000.

The Board further held that no additional reduction was required to make the assessment equitable with similar properties in the vicinity, as the $413,000 value already accounted for the initial over-assessment.

The 2015 assessment was reduced to $413,000, and the 2016 assessment was confirmed at $413,000.

The moving party, MPAC, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondents to produce all lease documents related to the subject properties for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fiscal years, as well as subsequent tenancies.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that MPAC already had the relevant information from statutory questionnaires and asserting confidentiality concerns.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the leases had a 'semblance of relevance' to the income approach to valuation and were necessary to clarify ambiguities in the provided information.

The Board noted that confidentiality concerns could be addressed through conditions, but the respondents failed to propose any.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 46.45-acre farm property in North Glengarry for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation returned an assessment of $248,000.

The appellant argued the value was too high, but provided evidence of an aborted sale of a five-acre portion of the property for $225,000 and a subsequent offer of $250,000.

The Assessment Review Board found this market evidence supported a current value of at least $250,000, which was further corroborated by comparable sales provided by the respondent.

As no evidence was presented regarding equity, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $248,000.

The moving party requested that the Board member recuse himself from hearing property assessment appeals due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was based on the member's past position on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club Canada, an organization that supports wind turbines.

The moving party argued that the appeals involved the impact of nearby wind turbines on property values.

The Board member dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable and informed person would not conclude that his past membership or general views on renewable energy would prevent him from fairly assessing evidence regarding the impact of wind turbines on property values.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of their two farm properties, arguing that the surrounding electrical infrastructure, including wind turbines, a high-voltage transmission line, and a large transformer and switching station, negatively impacted their value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that wind turbines generally impact land value or to quantify the specific impact of the switching station on the subject properties.

However, applying the principle of equity under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the assessment of the residential portions of the properties by 50% to align with a previous Board decision involving a similar property near major electrical infrastructure.

No reduction was applied to the farmland portions.

The appellants sold a portion of their industrial property to Canada Post and subsequently paid the property taxes for the entire block in full.

They then applied to the Town of Richmond Hill to apportion the taxes between the two parcels under s. 356 of the Municipal Act, seeking a refund.

The Town apportioned the taxes based on MPAC's statement of relative value, which the appellants argued was incorrect.

The appellants appealed the Town's decision to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction under s. 356(1)(b) is strictly limited to the apportionment of unpaid taxes, and it has no authority to hear appeals regarding the apportionment of taxes that have already been paid.

The appellant appealed the property assessment classification of 32 natural gas gate stations, arguing they should be classified as commercial rather than industrial.

The issue was whether adding an odorant (Mercaptan) to natural gas constitutes 'processing anything' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Federal Farms test, finding that the addition of the odorant changes the nature of the gas and makes it more marketable.

The Board followed its previous decision in Enbridge, dismissing the appeals and confirming the properties are properly classified in the industrial property class.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments for the 2009-2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, but disputed the land value.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on its lease with the City and land use restrictions, while MPAC relied on comparable sales of parkland.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the lease rate as below market and instead utilized comparable sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, adjusting for size.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $4,404,504 for the 2009-2012 taxation years and $5,409,422 for the 2013-2015 taxation years, and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The appellant yacht club appealed the property assessments for three parcels of land it occupies on the Ottawa River, arguing that the values should be substantially reduced due to severe development restrictions and their location in a floodplain.

The respondent assessment corporation had valued the properties using commercial land rates with some reductions.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the respondent's methodology, finding that the development restrictions significantly impacted the properties' value.

The Board accepted the appellant's income approach, applying an 8% capitalization rate to the rent paid by the appellant to the National Capital Commission.

The assessments for the three parcels were reduced from $809,000, $601,000, and $782,000 to $75,000, $70,000, and $165,000, respectively.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his condominium unit, which was assessed at $310,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the value should be reduced due to a declining condominium market, a lack of upgrades since 2009, and water damage requiring a $600 repair.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that post-2012 market changes were irrelevant to the January 1, 2012 valuation day, the lack of upgrades was typical maintenance, and the minor water damage would not warrant a cost-to-cure adjustment by a purchaser.

The assessment was confirmed at $310,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 150-year-old mixed-use building in central Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Both parties agreed the highest and best use was as a vacant development site.

The Board preferred the appellant's direct sales comparison approach over the income approach, finding a value of $80 per square foot based on comparable sales.

The assessment was reduced from $968,000 to $577,000, apportioned between commercial and multi-residential classes.