Property Tax Assessment

The appellants appealed the 2019, 2020, and 2021 property assessments of their row house.

The respondent assessing corporation brought a motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of issue estoppel, arguing that the issues of current value and equitable value for the same assessment cycle (January 1, 2016 valuation date) had already been decided by the Board in a 2018 decision.

The appellants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the respondent's motion because notice of the issue estoppel argument was provided late under the Board's Rules.

The Board dismissed the appellants' motion, finding no prejudice as they had adequate opportunity to respond.

The Board granted the respondent's motion, applying the three-part test for issue estoppel, and dismissed the appeals, confirming the property's current value at $483,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2005 to 2015 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll.

Following a merger on title, MPAC inadvertently continued to assess a newly constructed KFC building on both the subject property and the adjacent plaza property, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the double assessment constituted a palpable error of conspicuous magnitude.

Given the significant prejudice to the taxpayer and the consent of both MPAC and the City of Hamilton, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing the appeals and directed MPAC to be the appellant.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their waterfront property on Pine Lake for the 2017-2021 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $869,000 for 2017, later reduced to $765,000, plus a $33,000 omitted assessment for a detached garage.

The appellants argued the value should be lower due to restrictions on Pine Lake caused by a nearby Provincial Park.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that Pine Lake's unique restrictions required using a comparable property on the same lake, resulting in a base current value of $703,000, plus the $33,000 garage assessment for later years.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity.

The property owner brought a motion for permission to file a late appeal of her property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

She purchased the vacant lot in September 2020 and sought to change its classification from commercial to residential.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the owner failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 26 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as she did not prove the appeal was sent within the statutory timeframe, nor did she file the request within 30 days of becoming aware of the classification.

The appellants appealed the 2019, 2020, and 2021 property tax assessments of their residential property, arguing the current value should be between $180,000 and $220,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $277,000 based on comparable sales, but reduced the 2019 assessment to $213,000 to account for necessary repairs existing on the state and condition date.

The Board confirmed the $277,000 assessment for 2020 and 2021, as the repairs had been completed.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

The appellants appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of their single-family detached dwelling, arguing the current value assessment of $2,144,000 was too high and should be reduced to $1,459,980.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and found that the correct current value was actually $2,299,000.

However, because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at the returned value of $2,144,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was warranted as similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

The appellant property owner appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of his residential condominium unit, arguing the current value assessment of $352,000 was too high due to unfinished common elements in the building following the builder's insolvency.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $367,000 based on the 2014 purchase price adjusted for the unfinished elements.

As MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $352,000 and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their newly built residential townhouse for the 2018 to 2021 taxation years, including an omitted assessment.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $314,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis to similar lands in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessed value to $295,000.

The omitted assessment for 2018 was correspondingly reduced from $214,000 to $195,000.

The moving party brought a motion to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The Board found that while a request for reconsideration was not a prerequisite for this property class, the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged filing the motion more than 30 days after becoming aware of the assessment notice.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The moving party brought a motion to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board determined that while a request for reconsideration was not a prerequisite for this appeal, the moving party failed to meet the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b).

Specifically, the moving party did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment notice.

The motion was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicants applied for a refund of their 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

Both applicants underwent major surgeries in 2018 and suffered severe ongoing illnesses in 2019, with one applicant passing away in 2020.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants' monthly expenses significantly exceeded their income, forcing them to liquidate assets and incur debt to pay the taxes.

The Board concluded the applicants were unable to pay their 2019 property taxes due to sickness and ordered the City to refund the full amount of $5,285.52.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals, either as of right under Rule 27 or with leave under Rule 29.

The City of Vaughan and MPAC opposed the withdrawal because the City had issued a Notice of Higher Assessment.

The City also brought a motion for disclosure of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the Appellant's motion to withdraw, finding that the City's notice was valid and precluded withdrawal as of right, and that the Appellant failed to establish grounds for leave to withdraw.

The Board granted the City's motion for disclosure, finding the Agreement of Purchase and Sale relevant to the property's current value and its disclosure proportionate.

The appellants appealed the supplementary and returned property assessments for their custom-built home for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board first dismissed a preliminary motion challenging the respondent's unlicensed representative, finding she qualified under the in-house exemption.

On the merits, the Board upheld the quality of construction rating of 8.5 but reduced the current value assessment from $2,246,000 to $2,195,000 based on the median sale price of comparable properties.

The Board declined to apply negative adjustments for proximity to a transit station or other property characteristics.

The appellant appealed the 2018-2021 property assessments of a commercial property improved with a theatre in Niagara Falls, arguing the assessed value of $2,620,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales presented by both parties to determine the land value.

The Board found that the location of properties closer to the downtown core had more value due to tourist traffic exposure, and concluded the assessed land value was appropriate.

The Board confirmed the current value assessment of $2,620,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of a one-acre portion of their farm used for a Mennonite community school.

The assessor had changed the classification from Residential to Commercial.

The appellants sought to have the property exempted from taxation or returned to the Residential class.

The Assessment Review Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant tax exemptions, which must be determined by the Superior Court.

The Board further found that the school portion did not meet the criteria for the Residential or Farm Property classes under O. Reg. 282/98, and therefore fell into the default Commercial Property Class.

The assessments were confirmed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years regarding a property incorrectly assessed as a parking unit instead of a storage locker.

MPAC sought to be directed as the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description and the assessment of the property to the wrong owner constituted palpable errors.

Given the lack of prejudice and the consent of the municipality, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion, extending the time for the appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years and to be directed as the appellant.

The motion arose after MPAC discovered that a property assessed as a parking unit was actually a storage locker that had already been accounted for in another roll number, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description and double assessment constituted palpable errors.

Given the consent of the City of Toronto and the lack of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion, extending the time for appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2015 to 2018 taxation years and to be directed as the appellant.

The motion was based on palpable errors in the assessment roll, specifically the double taxation of a misdescribed storage locker.

The Assessment Review Board found that the errors were of conspicuous magnitude and constituted palpable errors.

Given the lack of prejudice to the municipality and the benefit to the taxpayer, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the motion and create the appeals.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property in Aurora for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the assessment was too high due to the property's location near a busy street and transit station.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation presented comparable sales supporting a higher current value.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $540,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $516,000 because no notice to seek a higher assessment was filed.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.