Alexander Pletsch

The Requestor filed a Request for Review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the current value assessment of properties forming the Westridge Shopping Centre.

The Requestor argued the Board made a significant error of law or fact by adopting MPAC's capitalization rate analysis, which allegedly resulted in a 'leased fee' rather than 'fee simple' value.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the original Hearing Member properly understood the legal requirements, appropriately weighed the evidence regarding market rents, and made no significant error in preferring MPAC's evidence over the Requestor's.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a surface parking lot in Ottawa's Byward Market for the 2013-2022 taxation years.

The central issue was the property's highest and best use.

The appellant argued the highest and best use was its current use as a parking lot, while MPAC argued it was for mixed-use development.

The Assessment Review Board found that there is no presumption that a property's current use is its highest and best use.

Relying on appraisal theory and MPAC's comparable sales data, the Board concluded that mixed-use development was physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.

The Board accepted MPAC's determination of the correct current value and equitable reduction, setting the assessed values at $6,807,600 for the 2012 assessment cycle and $8,334,000 for the 2016 assessment cycle.

The applicant sought a determination on whether an "air parcel" constitutes assessable "land" under section 1(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.31.

The court concluded that an air parcel, as defined in a strata plan, is not "land" for the purposes of the Act until a physical structure is affixed to the ground.

The decision emphasized that the statutory definition of "land" is paramount, not common law or conveyancing practices, and that legislative amendment would be required to include air parcels for taxation.

The applicant's request for an order was granted, and costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for three properties comprising a big box shopping centre in Vaughan for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The Board determined the correct current value using the income approach, analyzing fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate.

The Board preferred the respondent MPAC's evidence, which relied on comparable properties in the same vicinity, over the appellants' mass appraisal study of properties across the Greater Toronto Area.

The Board ordered reductions for two of the properties based on MPAC's revised calculations and confirmed the assessment for the third property.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $9,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow it to file Statements of Response after the deadline had passed.

Uxbridge argued that administrative challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of a significant Board decision regarding gravel pit valuation constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Uxbridge had made a conscious decision not to participate initially and that the release of a precedent-setting decision does not amount to an exceptional circumstance justifying an extension.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order declaring that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 43 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and that equity of the assessments was not a live issue for the hearing.

The Board found that the appellant's Statement of Issues did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 43.

However, the Board declined to declare that equity was not a live issue, noting its statutory duty under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act to consider equitable assessment.

The Board found that MPAC and the City had sufficient notice of the appellant's position through an expert report, mitigating any prejudice, and allowed equity to be raised at the hearing.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a land assembly of five contiguous properties on King Street West in Toronto for the 2014-2020 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the properties based on a highest and best use of a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to rebut the presumption that the highest and best use is the existing use as 2 and 3-storey commercial buildings, as MPAC did not provide sufficient economic analysis to prove the financial feasibility of the proposed development.

The Board reduced the assessments to the current values proposed by the appellants' expert based on the existing use.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years due to the Appellants' failure to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

The Appellants had obtained an extension from MPAC but failed to obtain consent from the City.

The Board found that while the Appellants failed to comply with the Rules, the breach had been cured by the subsequent filing of the Statement of Issues and an expert report.

Given the lack of overwhelming prejudice to the City and the severe consequences of dismissal, the Board denied the motion to dismiss.