Property Tax Assessment

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 a Board decision that dismissed her property assessment appeal after she failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing.

She argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying her request for an in-person hearing via an email she did not see, as she was caring for her son following surgery.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no breach of natural justice or error of fact, as the appellant had received the original notice of hearing, the Board responded to her request at the email address she provided, and she did not request an adjournment or notify the Board of her inability to attend.

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The City of Windsor requested the reinstatement of two property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Skyline Commercial Real Estate Holdings Inc. The City argued that the procedural steps in the Schedule of Events constituted a hearing event,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 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 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 moving party sought to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2016 taxation year.

He argued that he was misinformed by Board staff that his 2017 appeal would cover the 2016 year.

The Assessment Review Board found that no appeal was statutorily deemed for 2016 under the Assessment Act.

Furthermore, the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal, as he had received notice of the assessment and failed to file within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2020 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring her to provide sufficient financial documentation to prove her inability to pay.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals concerning a banquet hall, arguing the appellant failed to provide a compliant Statement of Issues (SOI) under Rule 43.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's SOI was non-compliant as it lacked necessary details such as current value calculations and comparable properties.

However, balancing the prejudice to both parties and noting the appellant's active participation, the Board declined to dismiss the appeals.

Instead, the Board ruled that the appropriate consequence for non-compliance would be restricting the appellant at the hearing to only those documents and issues properly served, pursuant to Rules 48 and 49.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a farm with commercial/industrial operations for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellant argued that issue estoppel should apply based on a 2014 Board decision, and that the current value should be $180,000.

The Board dismissed the issue estoppel argument because the valuation dates and issues were different.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence based on the cost approach and direct comparison approach, finding the correct current value was $1,278,000.

However, since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $847,000.

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 Requestor sought a review of a Board decision that denied its motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals.

The Requestor argued the Board made significant errors of law regarding the service of a notice of higher assessment, the interpretation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to enforce the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law in the original decision.

The Board confirmed that the notice was properly served on the party, that Rule 40 only applied to summary proceedings, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

The Applicant applied to the City of London for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2020 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's average monthly income exceeded her basic household expenses by $828.

Consequently, the Board determined that the Applicant was able to pay the $3,613.33 in property taxes levied in 2020 and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their newly constructed single-family dwelling.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,224,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $1,800,000 and $1,850,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sale supported a lower value due to differences in lot size and quality of construction.

The Board reduced the supplementary assessment, resulting in a total current value of $2,060,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

No equity reduction was found to be necessary.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her residential property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $455,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $435,000 and $444,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $451,000 based on time-adjusted builder sales of comparable properties in the same development.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity was within acceptable parameters.

The assessment was ordered reduced to $451,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant, unbuildable waterfront lot on Methodist Island for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had assessed the property at $17,900 for 2020 and $14,500 for 2021, while the appellant argued the value should be $10,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales data supported a current value of $14,500.

The Board also determined that no equitable reduction was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity was within acceptable parameters.

The assessment was reduced to $14,500 for 2020 and confirmed at $14,500 for 2021.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded on the basis of inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient household income and bank balances to meet their financial obligations, including the payment of the 2020 property taxes.

As the applicants were able to pay their taxes, the application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the omitted and returned assessments of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on their 2019 purchase price of $508,047.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the 2019 sale as it was a builder's sale not fully exposed to the open market and occurred well after the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

Applying the Direct Comparison Approach, the Board found the current value to be $566,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $537,000 because MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Board also dismissed the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis demonstrated the assessment was equitable.

The applicant requested the reinstatement of a property assessment application that was dismissed after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant provided affidavit evidence that he was too ill to attend the hearing or seek medical assistance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant met the threshold requirements for reinstatement and that his failure to attend was through no fault of his own due to illness.

Concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured the applicant, the Board granted the request and reinstated the application.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a property assessment.

Because the property was in the residential tax class, the Board treated the motion as a request to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act.

Finding that the moving party's late receipt of the notice of assessment constituted extenuating circumstances, the Board granted the extension and allowed 30 days to file the RfR.