Property Tax Assessment

The appellant requested a review of a previous Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant argued that it did not receive notice of the conference.

The Board found that the appellant had filed all necessary materials prior to the conference and failed to attend through no fault of its own.

The motion was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellant applied for property tax rebates for its brick manufacturing facility under sections 357 and 364 of the Municipal Act for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the section 357 appeal, finding that the kilns were shut down primarily due to economic factors rather than repairs or renovations.

However, the Board allowed the section 364 appeals, finding that the specified kilns, holding rooms, and track were eligible for a vacant unit rebate as they were clearly delineated and unused for at least 90 consecutive days.

The parties were directed to confer on the quantum of the rebate.

The appellant appealed a City Council decision granting a property tax refund of $51.77 for fire damage, arguing the refund was too low and the property's value was zero.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide any supporting documentation or evidence of costs incurred to restore the property, contrary to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to cancel interest and penalties.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order permitting the late filing of its property assessment appeals for the 2018 taxation year.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because it had received the notice of assessment.

However, the Board granted the moving party's alternative request to revise its existing 2019 appeal to reflect the 2018 taxation year, finding that a clerical error had occurred and that the appeal form substantially complied with the Rules.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their 86.64-acre property, which included both farmed and non-farmed land.

MPAC assessed the current value at $486,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $359,000 based on a neighbouring property's assessment and various negative property features such as poor drainage and swampy areas.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct comparison approach, using six comparable sales with a median time-adjusted sale price of $492,683, provided the best evidence of current value.

The Board noted that the appellants provided no sales evidence and no quantitative evidence to support a reduction for the negative features, which MPAC had already accounted for by applying lower soil class ratings to the non-farmed acreage.

The returned assessment of $486,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2013-2016 property tax assessments for a commercial property operating as an automobile dealership.

The property was assessed at $3,513,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value, claiming a deduction for functional (showroom) obsolescence and a lower land value due to traffic counts.

The Board found that the property, built in 2005, was too new to qualify for showroom obsolescence.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable land sales and determined the correct current value to be $3,367,000.

No equitable reduction was granted as the appellant provided no evidence to support one.

The respondents brought motions to strike the appellant's Amended Statement of Issues and Reply, arguing it was served past the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that its rules do not provide for striking pleadings.

However, because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for missing the deadline to serve its Amended Statement of Issues, it cannot raise any new issues at the hearing that were not in its original Statement of Issues or its Amended Reply.

The Amended Reply was served on time and may be relied upon.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year, alleging a palpable error in the property's classification as a new construction large industrial property rather than a commercial warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board found that while classification errors can constitute palpable errors under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence of the property's use in 2017.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if an error existed, it was not inadvertent or of conspicuous magnitude, and the Board would not exercise its discretion to extend the appeal deadline where the moving party simply failed to appeal in time.

The moving party sought to file late appeals of property assessments for the 2019 taxation year, arguing that it did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notices because they were mailed to a former address.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party was entitled to receive the notices and did not receive them, it failed to file the appeals within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the deadline, noting the lengthy and unexplained delay between the moving party becoming aware of the assessments and requesting the late appeals.

The motions were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a supplementary assessment for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years arising from alterations to their home, specifically a kitchen renovation.

MPAC had increased the assessment from $803,000 to $864,000.

The Board found MPAC's comparable sales evidence insufficient to support the $61,000 increase, as it lacked details on the nature of the modifications in the comparable properties.

Relying on the appellants' evidence that the alterations cost $47,000, the Board added this cost to the base assessment, resulting in a new current value of $850,000.

The Board declined to make an equity reduction under s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, finding no evidence that similar properties were underassessed.

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 appealed the current value assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,456,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $1,200,000 and $1,400,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,498,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,399,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel applied to an appeal of a property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The appellant had previously appealed the assessment for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, which resulted in a Board decision determining the current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The Board found that the three criteria for issue estoppel were met: the same question was decided, the previous decision was final, and the parties were the same.

Finding no new evidence or change in circumstances to justify declining to apply issue estoppel, the Board granted the motion and confirmed the assessment at $290,000.

The Appellants appealed the current value assessment of their property located at 19 Bowman Avenue in Brampton for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC and the City of Brampton sought to confirm the assessment at $1,184,000, while the Appellants argued for a reduction to $755,200.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,145,000.

The Board rejected the Appellants' request for a further equitable reduction, finding that the assessment to sales ratios of similar properties in the vicinity were within the acceptable range.

The assessment was reduced to $1,145,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly constructed detached house in an older neighbourhood for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the respondent's comparable sales of new homes in newer subdivisions, preferring a mix of sales that accounted for the property's unique location.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $826,438 and applied an equity reduction factor of 0.89, resulting in a final adjusted assessment of $735,500.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 and 2019 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicants failed to submit the required documentation to prove their inability to pay and did not attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the 2018 application was filed past the statutory deadline in section 357(3) and was therefore invalid.

Both the 2018 and 2019 applications were dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the applicants' failure to appear.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes, noting that she was able to pay her taxes as part of her regular mortgage payments while meeting household necessities and incurring discretionary costs.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their residential property in Richmond Hill.

MPAC returned a current value assessment of $3,177,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $2,400,000 based on their own comparable properties and adjustments for property-specific limitations.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was a comparable property sale supporting a value of $3,500,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

Because MPAC did not serve notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,177,000.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their renovated single-family home in Toronto, which MPAC had assessed at $1,507,000.

The Board first determined the current value of the property to be $1,527,000 based on MPAC's time-adjusted sales analysis of comparable properties.

However, upon conducting an equity analysis comparing the subject property to five similarly renovated properties in the vicinity, the Board found that a reduction was necessary to achieve equitable assessment.

The Board ordered the assessment reduced to $1,338,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting leave to file reply evidence regarding equity issues raised by the appellant, Shoppers Drug Mart.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found the reply evidence necessary and appropriate, granting MPAC until January 8, 2021, to serve and file its reply evidence and amending the Schedule of Events accordingly.