Vincent Stabile

The appellant applied for a refund of property taxes, alleging the municipality incorrectly calculated tax adjustments relating to minutes of settlement for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 taxation years.

The municipality argued the application was filed late.

The Assessment Review Board found the application was filed within the prescribed time limit, as the time began when the municipality implemented the settlements in 2018.

The Board further found the municipality made a factual error in calculating the taxes by applying the wrong tax rate, resulting in an overcharge.

The Board ordered the municipality to refund $62,821.00 to the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board issued an amended decision to correct minor errors in its final decision regarding the property assessment of several gravel pits.

Following an interim decision, the parties agreed on revised assessments, classifications, and apportionments for the taxation years 2017 to 2021.

The Board accepted the parties' interpretation of the interim decision, which included classifying specific portions of source ponds and extraction areas as industrial or residential.

The Board ordered that the representative properties be classified and assessed in accordance with the agreed-upon schedules.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for non-attendance.

The appellant alleged that the Board violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, including allegations of bias and collaboration between the Board member and the respondent.

The Board denied the request for review, finding no evidence to support the allegations of bias or collaboration.

The Board concluded that the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing but failed to attend, failed to file required evidence, and failed to provide a sworn affidavit to support its request for review.

The City of Windsor requested the reinstatement of two property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Skyline Commercial Real Estate Holdings Inc. The City argued that the procedural steps in the Schedule of Events constituted a hearing event, which would have prevented the withdrawal without leave.

The Assessment Review Board found that the procedural steps did not constitute a hearing event and that the appellant was entitled to withdraw the appeals as of right under Rule 27(b) since no party had given notice seeking a higher assessment prior to the withdrawal.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The requesters sought to reinstate their property assessment appeals after they were dismissed for non-attendance at a hearing.

The requesters submitted that they did not receive notice of the hearing because it was mailed to their municipal address rather than their P.O. Box.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requesters failed to attend through no fault of their own and that natural justice required the appeals to be reinstated.

The request for reinstatement was granted.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a settlement conference.

The requester's property manager submitted that he did not receive notice of the hearing because he was working from home due to COVID-19 restrictions and lacked access to the office business system.

The Board found that the requester failed to attend through no fault of its own and noted that the requester had already accepted a written offer to settle from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals, ordering the parties to file executed Minutes of Settlement within 97 days.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their residential property for the 2019 taxation year.

They argued that the Board heard false or misleading evidence and that there was new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, based on a newspaper publication regarding time adjustment calculations.

The Board found that the publication did not constitute false or misleading evidence from an opposing party or witness, and that the information was available prior to the original hearing.

The request for review was denied as an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined.

The County of Wellington appealed the property tax assessments of six licensed gravel pits, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) undervalued the properties and incorrectly classified them.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct interpretation of section 6(2) of O. Reg. 282/98, finding that specific portions of the licensed areas actively used for or in connection with extraction, processing, and related activities fall into the Industrial property class, while the remainder defaults to the Residential or Farm class.

Applying the cost approach, the Board rejected the County's proposed valuation based on general industrial land and MPAC's formula based on marginal farmland, instead relying on a recent sale of a licensed gravel pit to determine a current value of $15,080 per acre for the land portion.

The Board found no evidence to warrant a reduction for equitable assessment.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their distribution centre.

MPAC subsequently gave notice that it was seeking to increase the current value assessment.

The appellants brought a motion to constrain MPAC from seeking an increase beyond the value returned on the roll, arguing lack of authority, unfairness, and failure to follow the Board's rules.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 44(3) of the Assessment Act mandates the Board to determine the correct current value starting fresh, and that appellants bear the risk of an increased assessment when they appeal.

The Board also found no prejudice resulting from procedural delays.

The appellants requested the reinstatement of their property assessment appeals, which had been dismissed after they failed to respond to MPAC's motion to dismiss for not filing a Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the threshold requirements for a reinstatement request were met, the appellants failed to establish the grounds for reinstatement under Rule 122.

The appellants argued that MPAC had previously accepted their 2016 Statement of Issues, but the Board noted that the appellants should have raised this argument in response to the original motion to dismiss.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

Walmart Canada Corp. requested the reinstatement of a property tax assessment appeal that was previously withdrawn, arguing the withdrawal was made in error.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request because the supporting affidavit provided no factual explanation or evidence regarding how the error occurred or who made it.

The Board held that reinstating an appeal without reliable evidence would undermine its rules and process.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of three property assessment appeals that were previously withdrawn.

The appellant's representative filed an affidavit explaining that the appeals for the subject property were withdrawn due to a clerical error, as the intention was to withdraw appeals for an adjacent property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation took no position.

The Assessment Review Board found that the withdrawal was a good faith clerical error falling under Rule 122(a) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years for a 6.69-acre farm property.

MPAC had assessed the property at $352,000 for 2017 and $322,000 for 2018 and 2019 using the cost approach.

The appellant argued that the replacement cost new was too high, the depreciation allowed was too low, and the land classification was incorrect.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that the entire parcel (excluding water) should be assessed as Class 6 farmland and applying a 2.4% annual depreciation rate to the structures.

The Board reduced the assessment to $160,500 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a seasonal recreational property, challenging the supplementary assessment for a newly constructed building.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the land and the building using the cost approach, as the direct comparison approach evidence was insufficient.

The Board confirmed the vacant land assessment at $192,000 and reduced the supplementary assessment for the building from $476,000 to $406,000.

No equity adjustments were warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her waterfront residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $414,000 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The appellant argued that the property should receive more negative adjustments due to a public trail that effectively reduced the site area and water frontage.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's proposed 51% negative adjustment but disagreed with MPAC's calculation method.

The Board determined the correct current value before adjustments was $579,000, and after applying the 51% negative adjustment, reduced the assessed value to $290,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal recreational waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $880,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $770,000 to $780,000.

The Board found that MPAC had improperly increased the quality class of the property from 7.0 to 7.5 without justification, contrary to a prior agreement.

The Board also accepted the appellants' evidence regarding negative adjustments for shallow water, weeds, lack of legal access, and a detached garage.

The Board reduced the assessment to $845,000 and found no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a seasonal recreational property on Aylen Lake.

MPAC had assessed the vacant land at $192,000 and issued a supplementary assessment of $476,000 for a newly built structure, totaling $668,000.

The appellant argued for a total assessment of $525,000 to $560,000 based on independent appraisals.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the cost approach from one of the appellant's appraisals, determining the land value at $260,000 and the building value at $338,000.

Since MPAC did not request an increase for the land, the Board confirmed the land assessment at $192,000 and reduced the supplementary building assessment to $406,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The assessor used the direct sales comparison approach, proposing an assessment of $625,000.

The appellants argued for a lower assessment based on the property's location on a canal and the assessed values of other properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the use of assessed values to determine current value and accepted the assessor's direct sales comparison approach.

The Board found the correct current value to be $677,000, but because MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $625,000.

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

MPAC had returned an assessment of $1,144,000 and proposed a current value of $1,291,000 at the hearing, while the appellant requested the assessment be fixed at the last uncontested value of $858,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,137,000 based on the comparable properties provided.

The Board also found that a 6% reduction for equity was warranted, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,069,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a small, unbuildable island on Leonard Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $6,900 for 2017 and $6,500 for 2018 using the direct sales comparison approach, applying a 90% reduction to reflect its unbuildable status.

The Assessment Review Board found that the direct sales comparison approach was appropriate and that MPAC's valuation model was applied consistently.

The Board reduced the 2017 assessment to $6,500 to match the 2018 assessment and confirmed the 2018 assessment at $6,500, finding no further adjustment for equity was warranted.