Property Tax Assessment

The requesting party, 743031 Ontario Limited, sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Ottawa, the Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure order on consent, subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party brought a motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal, pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the motion was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to the terms imposed under the Act.

The appellant property owner sought to withdraw its assessment appeals.

MPAC objected and brought a motion to reinstate the appeals, arguing that it had given notice of its intention to request a higher assessment in its Statement of Response, which under Rule 72 precludes withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's Statement of Response constituted valid notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Board granted MPAC's motion and reinstated the appeals, noting the appellant could still bring a formal motion for permission to withdraw.

The appellant requested a review of a Board decision that denied its request to withdraw its property assessment appeals as of right.

The appellant argued that it could withdraw because the responding parties (MPAC and the City of Ottawa) had not filed their own appeals to seek a higher assessment, and that notice of such intent in a Statement of Response was insufficient.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the responding parties properly gave notice of their intent to seek a higher assessment under the Rules, which precluded withdrawal as of right.

The Board also confirmed its jurisdiction to increase an assessment on an appeal without the responding parties filing their own appeals, and noted that the restriction on MPAC increasing an assessment without a physical change applies to specific amendments, not general reassessments.

The City of Mississauga requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that granted a property tax refund to the owner of a mixed-use building substantially damaged by fire.

The City argued the Hearing Member erred in law and fact by misapprehending the assessed value, ignoring statutory formulas for calculating refunds, and relying on the actual cost of repairs rather than an automated cost estimate.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the Municipal Act does not prescribe a specific method for determining the reduction in property value under s. 357(1)(d), and that the Hearing Member's reliance on the actual cost of repairs was a reasonable application of the cost-to-cure approach supported by the evidence.

The requesting party, 150 The Driveway Ltd., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by the respondents, the Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure order on consent.

The appellant requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for third-party properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and no objections were received.

On consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family home for the 2018-2020 taxation years.

MPAC had returned a roll value of $1,397,000 but presented evidence at the hearing supporting a current value of $1,569,000, while recommending the Board confirm the roll value.

The Board rejected the appellants' arguments that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof or acted illegally by proposing a higher value.

Using MPAC's comparable sales evidence, the Board determined the current value to be $1,646,000.

The Board then applied an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) of 0.921 for equity, resulting in a final adjusted current value of $1,516,000.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) because it failed to file the request within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via tax bills.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to grant an extension of time, finding that the moving party acted reasonably in the circumstances, and that principles of fairness and lack of prejudice weighed in favour of allowing the appeal to proceed.

The appellant appealed the City's cancellation of a vacancy tax rebate for the 2014 taxation year.

The City had cancelled the rebate after discovering the supporting affidavit was sworn before a person whose appointment as a Commissioner had expired.

The appellant failed to appear at the peremptory hearing and did not comply with the Board's Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of communication and non-compliance indicated the appeal had been abandoned.

The appellant filed appeals regarding the property assessment of a residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board scheduled a telephone conference call hearing, but the appellant failed to attend without prior notice.

After waiting 30 minutes and making reasonable efforts to contact the appellant, the Board dismissed the appeals for failure to proceed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the property at $602,000 but revised its position to $562,000 due to a change in the quality class rating.

The appellants argued for a current value of $520,000 based on comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the builder's sale of the subject property in 2016 for $697,517.

However, as the Board will not increase the returned assessment, it accepted MPAC's revised assessment of $562,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The Appellants filed a Request for Review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their residential property.

They sought a rehearing to adduce additional evidence they claimed they could not obtain prior to the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the proposed evidence was either already available to the Appellants prior to the hearing, irrelevant, or would not have affected the original decision.

The requester sought a review of the Board's decision refusing to allow a late appeal of a property assessment.

The requester argued that severe illness prevented him from reviewing the Notice of Assessment until months after it was received.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that under section 40(6) of the Assessment Act, the deadline is absolute.

The narrow common law exception for late appeals only applies when the notice is not received at all, not when it is received but unread due to illness.

The appellants appealed a decision of the City of Mississauga denying their application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The appellants sought an exemption on the basis that the subject property was a philanthropic organization or charitable institution.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that neither the City nor the Board has jurisdiction under s. 357(1)(d.1) to grant such an exemption, and that the appellants must apply to the Superior Court of Justice under s. 46 of the Assessment Act.

The City of Mississauga filed a Request for Review of a Board decision that granted a property tax refund to the owner of a mixed-use building substantially damaged by fire.

The City argued the Hearing Member made significant errors of law and fact, including misapprehending the assessed value, ignoring statutory formulas for calculating refunds, and relying on actual repair costs rather than the City's automated cost estimates.

The Board dismissed the Request for Review, finding that the Municipal Act does not prescribe a specific method for determining the reduction in property value under s. 357(1)(d), and that the Hearing Member's reliance on the actual cost to repair the building was a reasonable application of the cost-to-cure approach supported by the evidence.

In a property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year, the Appellants sought to introduce late documents, which the Board denied due to lack of exceptional circumstances and prejudice to the other parties.

The Appellants' subsequent request for an adjournment to appeal this ruling was also denied.

MPAC then moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a settlement reached during the Request for Reconsideration process for the 2018 taxation year triggered issue estoppel.

The Board dismissed MPAC's motion, applying the Supreme Court's framework in Danyluk to hold that a settlement agreement is a contract between parties, not a judicial decision, and therefore cannot ground a claim of issue estoppel.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront single-family residence for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the assessment to $471,000 for both years based on a market value adjustment, unfinished decks, and a change in condition from average to fair.

The appellants rejected this, arguing for an assessment of $341,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and found the average square foot value supported MPAC's recommended assessment.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was warranted under s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio was 1.03.

The Board reduced the assessment to $471,000 for both years as recommended by MPAC.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $237,000, while the appellants argued for $220,000 based on sales of matching units.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed time-adjusted sales of three similar inside non-waterfront units in the same complex, determining an average square foot value.

Applying this to the subject property, the Board reduced the assessment to $233,000 and found no further adjustment for equity was warranted.