Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the omitted assessments for 2015 and 2016, and the returned assessment for 2017-2019, for a multi-residential property that had been renovated following a fire.

The property was subject to an affordable housing agreement that restricted rents below market value.

The Board held that market rents, rather than actual subsidized rents, must be used to determine the property's current value under the income approach.

The Board reduced the 2015 and 2016 assessments to $4,758,000 to reflect a lower gross income multiplier and an equity adjustment, but confirmed the 2017-2019 assessments at $5,189,000.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2016 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient funds in her bank accounts at the end of 2016 to pay the outstanding property taxes while still maintaining a positive balance.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, the application was denied.

The appellant property owner brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of his vacant commercial land.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to request specific documents, making it impossible to determine relevance.

The Board noted that MPAC had already provided comprehensive initial disclosure via its online database, and the appellant would have the opportunity to request further specific disclosure after the exchange of the Statement of Issues and Statement of Response.

The moving party, who purchased a residential property in September 2019, brought a motion to file a late appeal of the 2019 property assessment, alleging material inaccuracies.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party was not entitled to notice of the assessment because they did not own the property when the roll was returned in December 2018.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file a mandatory Request for Reconsideration by the March 31, 2019 deadline, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time because the moving party was not the owner at the relevant time.

The appellant, Morguard Realty Holdings Inc., requested an order for the disclosure of documents from MPAC regarding 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 MPAC and the Town of Aurora, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure on consent.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a residential property.

The Board had found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the property's current value and, as a result, fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value rather than determining the current value.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's approach was contrary to the Assessment Act, which strictly requires the Board to determine the current value of the property.

The matter was remitted back to the Board.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against the City of Toronto and its representative regarding property tax arrears.

The motion judge had found her claims were statute-barred and that the City was entitled to collect the arrears.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in his conclusions, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and should not have granted summary judgment while her claim against her former solicitor remained outstanding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no risk of conflicting judgments.

The appellants requested 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.

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 section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting parties 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, 310171 Ontario Limited, sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for several properties not under appeal.

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

As neither MPAC nor the City of Ottawa opposed the request, the Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of property assessments for the 2008 and 2010 to 2018 taxation years, arguing that he recently discovered the properties lacked water access.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

For the 2010 to 2018 taxation years, the moving party failed to file Requests for Reconsideration within the prescribed time, which is a statutory precondition to appeal under the Assessment Act.

For the 2008 taxation year, the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he did not establish that he failed to receive the notice of assessment or that he filed the motion within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

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

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

As neither MPAC nor the municipality opposed the request, the Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure order on consent, subject to terms imposed by MPAC under s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant requested an order for MPAC to disclose income and expense statements for several properties not under appeal.

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

As the request was 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 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 Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not reflected in the assessment.

MPAC subsequently issued omitted assessments to add an Industrial property class and increase the value.

The Assessment Review Board found that while industrial use was occurring, MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value, as its cost approach evidence was unreliable and lacked necessary detail.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $347,000, but apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class to recognize the undisputed industrial use.

The requester sought to reinstate a property assessment appeal that its legal representative had withdrawn without prior client instructions.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request under Rule 122.

The Board found that while the withdrawal was an error, it was not a clerical error but rather a failure of the representative to obtain instructions.

The Board held that it must be able to rely on the representations of legal representatives, and going behind those representations would be unreasonable and problematic.

The requester sought a review of the Assessment Review Board's decision refusing his request to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The requester argued that a severe medical illness prevented him from reviewing the Property Assessment Notice and managing his affairs until several months after the appeal deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that because the requester had actually received the notice, the Board had no statutory jurisdiction or residual discretion under the Assessment Act or the Fleming exception to extend the absolute deadline for filing an appeal.

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

The appellant argued that severe illness prevented him from reviewing the Property Assessment Notice 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 unless the notice was never received.

Because the notice was delivered, the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline, regardless of the appellant's medical circumstances.

The Township of Johnson appealed the current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not adequately reflected.

MPAC had applied omitted assessments to add an industrial property class.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value of $322,000, apportioning a nominal $1,000 to the industrial class.

The Requestor sought an extension of time to file a request for review of a Board decision that dismissed his application to reduce his 2017 municipal taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day limit under Rule 120.

The Requestor claimed his delay was due to sickness but provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.

The Board denied the request for an extension of time.