Subuola Awoleri

The appellants appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of their single-family detached home, which had undergone major renovations.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,700,000 but recommended a revised value of $1,667,000 based on data changes.

The appellants argued for a value of $1,400,000, contending the property was not a 'rebuilt new' as classified by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparables superior and relied on the appellants' comparables to determine the current value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,667,000 and found no further equitable reduction was warranted.

The appellant failed to attend a mandatory settlement conference for its property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board contacted the appellant's representative, who stated he was unaware of the conference despite notice having been sent.

The respondent, MPAC, requested the appeals be dismissed due to prejudice and wasted resources.

The Board granted the request and dismissed the appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years for non-compliance with the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Fiera Axium Solar Limited Partnership for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Schedule of Events and did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's non-compliance with the Rules caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management capabilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Fiera Axium Solar Limited Partnership for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The moving party argued that the appeals should be dismissed because the respondent failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The respondent did not respond to the motion or appear.

The Board found that the respondent's breach of the Rules caused prejudice to the moving party by straining its resources and causing it to incur additional expenses.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The City of Toronto requested the dismissal of the applicant's property tax relief applications due to a lack of supporting financial documentation.

The applicant's son, acting as her representative, requested an adjournment, citing difficulties in obtaining the documents from 2016.

The Assessment Review Board declined to dismiss the applications immediately, noting the representative's lack of legal understanding, and instead granted a peremptory adjournment.

The Board ordered the applicant to produce specific financial records before the next hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Fiera Axium Solar Limited for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Company failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and did not respond to MPAC's communications or the motion.

The Board found that the Company's breach was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management capabilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years because the owner failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline set out in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The owner did not respond to the motion or cure the breach.

The Board found that the owner's non-compliance was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management abilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeal for the 2016 taxation year due to the appellant's failure to provide a Statement of Issues.

The appellant did not respond to the motion or cure the breach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's breach prejudiced MPAC by straining its resources and causing it to incur additional expenses.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The owner failed to provide his Statement of Issues by the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events, despite being given a grace period and multiple warnings by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's breach of the Rules caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and hindering its ability to meet appeal management obligations.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent company for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The company failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's schedule of events, breaching the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that MPAC was prejudiced by this breach due to the strain on its resources and additional expenses incurred.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's property assessment appeals for the 2015-2018 taxation years due to the respondent's failure to provide a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The respondent did not respond to the motion or cure the breach.

The Board found that the respondent's non-compliance prejudiced the moving party by straining its resources and hindering its ability to manage the appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $2,820,000.

The appellant argued that the property was an older home with ordinary renovations, while the respondent initially classified it as a new build with high-end finishes.

Following an inspection, the respondent recommended a reduced assessment of $2,535,000, which the appellant rejected as still too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $2,815,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment using the respondent's median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.892, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $2,511,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Midland II Property Inc. for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and did not respond to MPAC's subsequent communications or the motion.

The Board found that the appellant's breach was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management capabilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Skymark Properties 1 Corporation for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline set in the Board's schedule of events and did not respond to MPAC's subsequent communications.

The Board found that the appellant's breach of the Rules caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and hindering its ability to manage appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the owner for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to provide his Statement of Issues by the date specified by the Assessment Review Board and did not respond to MPAC's correspondence or the motion.

The Board found that the owner's breach of the Rules prejudiced MPAC by straining its resources and causing it to incur additional expenses.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Applicant applied for a refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming extreme poverty.

The Applicant operated a small computer business and lived on the subject property with his family.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the Applicant's income, expenses, and assets, noting that he managed his finances using credit cards and had even engaged in stock trading during the year.

The Board found that the Applicant had the ability to pay his property taxes in full and was not in a situation of extreme poverty.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant and her divorced spouse, who both receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, presented evidence of severe medical conditions affecting themselves and their child, resulting in a monthly household deficit.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicant credible and concluded she lacked the financial resources to pay the taxes due to sickness.

The Board ordered the municipality to cancel the 2017 property taxes in the amount of $4,966.55.

The moving party, a property owner appealing her property assessment, brought a motion for an order to summons the written testimony of the original MPAC assessor who had carriage of her file before going on maternity leave.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a summons to witness is not available in written hearings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to order a written examination of the original assessor, finding the request disproportionate because a replacement assessor had already answered the moving party's questions and there was insufficient evidence that the original assessor's answers would be different.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued the property abutted an educational institution, warranting a negative adjustment, while the respondents argued it abutted green space.

The Assessment Review Board found the property abutted green space.

Based on sales of similar properties, the Board determined the current value was $1,599,000 and the equitable value was $1,551,000.

Because no party sought an increase to the returned assessment of $1,227,000, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,227,000.

MPAC brought a motion for an order to inspect the respondent's property under Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that an inspection was unnecessary and questioning the qualifications of the MPAC assessor.

The Board granted the motion, finding that there were substantial facts in dispute regarding the property's quality class and renovation type, which could best be resolved through an inspection.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide access to the property within 30 days.