Subuola Awoleri

In a property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year, the Appellants sought to introduce late documents, which the Board denied due to lack of exceptional circumstances and prejudice to the other parties.

The Appellants' subsequent request for an adjournment to appeal this ruling was also denied.

MPAC then moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a settlement reached during the Request for Reconsideration process for the 2018 taxation year triggered issue estoppel.

The Board dismissed MPAC's motion, applying the Supreme Court's framework in Danyluk to hold that a settlement agreement is a contract between parties, not a judicial decision, and therefore cannot ground a claim of issue estoppel.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment change notice for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The moving party missed the statutory deadline but argued it did not receive the notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met all three conditions under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure: it was entitled to notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via a municipal tax bill.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of a single-family home, arguing the current value assessment of $797,000 should be reduced due to construction defects.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation agreed to a reduction to $753,000, but the City of Brampton objected, requesting the assessment be confirmed as returned.

The Assessment Review Board admitted post-inspection evidence over the City's objection and found that construction deficiencies warranted a $44,000 reduction from the determined current value of $810,000.

The Board set the assessment at $766,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision regarding property tax refunds for fire damage under section 323(7) of the City of Toronto Act, arguing the refunds were too low because the land values assessed by MPAC were incorrect.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that it had no jurisdiction to change the land values of the properties under a section 323 appeal.

The Board noted that challenges to property assessments must be brought under section 40 of the Assessment Act, and the appellant provided no other evidence to justify an increase in the tax refunds.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years regarding an omitted assessment.

The Assessment Review Board considered the requirements under Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

While the moving party was entitled to and did not receive the initial notice, the Board found that the moving party failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as awareness was imputed from the receipt and payment of municipal tax invoices earlier in the year.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The property owner appealed its property tax assessment, arguing the property should be classified as tax-exempt under s. 3(1)12 iii. of the Assessment Act.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that questions of exemption from taxation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court under s. 46 of the Act, whereas the Board's jurisdiction is limited to matters such as incorrect classification.

The applicant sought relief from property taxes for the 2018 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

After numerous adjournments of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 applications, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing.

The applicant's representative failed to attend the peremptory hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board dismissed the 2018 application due to the applicant's non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a vacant commercial waterfront property used as a parking lot with attached docks and slips.

The main issue was whether docks owned by a tenant and affixed to the property were assessable as part of the land under section 1 of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the docks were affixed to the property with an intention of permanence and were therefore assessable as land, regardless of the tenant's ownership.

The Board accepted MPAC's cost approach valuation and reduced the assessment from $44,000 to $27,000.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed the reclassification of its property from the residential to the multi-residential property tax class.

The appellant argued the property should remain in the residential class because the units were not self-contained and the property was used on a seasonal basis.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not used on a seasonal basis as it was open year-round.

Applying a prior Board decision, the Board determined that the physical layout of the suites, which included shared kitchens and bathrooms, met the definition of self-contained units.

The Board also held that equity does not apply to property classification.

The appeal was dismissed and the multi-residential classification was upheld.

The appellant appealed an overdue tax bill of $225,535.43 resulting from the City's late processing of phase-in assessment values for the 2009 to 2017 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City failed to comply with implied statutory time limits under the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and that the late processing constituted an error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding no expressed or implied legislative time frames for MPAC to provide the phase-in values or for the City to process them, and concluded there was no error or prejudice to the appellant.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to dismiss property tax appeals filed by Omers Realty Corporation for failure to provide a Statement of Issues by the date specified in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Respondent failed to comply with the Rules, the Moving Party did not demonstrate any prejudice that would justify the extreme remedy of dismissing the appeals.

The motion was denied and the appeals were ordered to proceed.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the assessed value of $8,700 was too high and should be $1,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by the respondent and found that the most similar sales indicated a lower value than assessed.

Applying a downward neighbourhood adjustment to the mid-point of the comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the current value should be $1,000 rather than the $8,700 assessed by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by MPAC and found that the most reliable comparable sales indicated a mid-point value of $9,500.

Applying a 49% downward neighbourhood adjustment, the Board determined the correct current value to be $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the assessed value of $9,100 was too high and should be $1,000.

MPAC recommended a value of $6,400 based on a 50% reduction for a significant decline at the rear of the property.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found that a nearby undeveloped property with similar topographical challenges sold for $4,000.

Applying a 49% downward neighbourhood adjustment agreed upon by the parties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,960 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial property, arguing the assessed value of $8,700 was too high and should be $1,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and found that the most comparable sales indicated a lower value than assessed.

Applying a downward neighbourhood adjustment to the mid-point of the comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the current value should be $1,000 due to topography issues and lack of access.

MPAC assessed the property at $9,900 for 2017-2018 and $7,000 for 2019.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sale was superior to the subject property and adjusted the current value to $6,776 based on the property's effective site area and declining topography.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of a vacant residential lot in the Township of Ignace, arguing the assessed value of $16,200 was too high compared to the 2012 assessment of $3,800.

MPAC presented evidence of sales of smaller and larger vacant lands to support the assessment, noting the 2012 assessment was an error.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant failed to provide market evidence to support a reduction and that MPAC's evidence supported the $16,200 valuation.

The Board also found the assessment was equitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity and dismissed the appeal, confirming the assessment.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's decision to decline its vacancy rebate application for the 2017 taxation year.

The City declined the application because the applicant failed to provide required supporting documentation within the prescribed 30-day time limit after receiving an incomplete notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient information for the City to make a decision and failed to cooperate with the City's request for documentation.

The appeal was dismissed, and no vacancy rebate was owed.

The applicant sought a refund of her 2018 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial resources and expenses.

The Board found that the applicant had incurred significant discretionary expenses, including meals outside the home, music lessons, and travel expenses for an adult child, which exceeded the total amount of property taxes owed.

The Board concluded that the applicant could reasonably have paid her property taxes had she prioritized them over discretionary spending.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling in Markham.

MPAC had assessed the property at $964,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $875,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,056,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equitable reduction based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the final assessment to $939,000.