Property Tax Assessment

The applicant applied to have her 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence, which showed her monthly income exceeded her expenses and she held significant equity in her mortgage-free home.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes levied in 2020.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on their 2014 purchase price from the builder.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the builder sale as the best evidence of current value, preferring the respondent's evidence of six comparable resales within the same building.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $306,000 and found no equity reduction was required.

The appellant appealed omitted assessments for a newly constructed residential property in Richmond Hill.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,311,000 for the 2021 taxation year, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,200,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value was actually $1,430,000.

However, because MPAC only sought confirmation of the assessed values and did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the original assessed values.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was necessary.

The Grand Theatre Foundation brought a motion to accept a late appeal of its 2021 property assessment.

The Foundation acquired the property in March 2021 and did not receive a notice of assessment.

Although the Foundation missed the March 31 deadline, it contacted the Board and filed a request to extend time on April 1, within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Foundation met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal, including that filing in the wrong form within 30 days was sufficient.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The appellants appealed the 2021 property tax assessment of their custom-built, one-storey home in Mississauga, originally assessed at $2,920,000.

MPAC sought an increase to $2,939,000 based on sales of custom homes in different neighbourhoods, while the appellants argued for a reduction to $1,900,000 based on sales within the same neighbourhood.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's comparables due to lack of locational similarity and preferred the appellants' neighbourhood comparables.

Using a bracketing method, the Board determined the correct current value to be $2,139,000 and ordered the assessment reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the 2021 property tax assessment of their rural residential property, originally assessed at $852,000.

MPAC sought an increase to $913,000 based on three comparable sales.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $730,000, presenting their own comparable sales from the same homogeneous neighbourhood.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's primary comparables due to distance and lack of locational similarity.

Relying on the average time-adjusted sale price of three comparable properties in the immediate vicinity, the Board determined the correct current value to be $752,000.

No equity reduction was made as no evidence was presented on that issue.

The appellants, car rental companies at Pearson Airport, brought a motion to separate their 2021 property assessment appeals from their 2017-2020 appeals.

They argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and related government restrictions altered the state and condition of the properties as of the December 15, 2020 state and condition date, creating a distinct issue for the 2021 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the proceedings had not become unduly complicated, delayed, or repetitive, and that the appellants were not unduly prejudiced.

The Board also noted that any potential delay was attributable to the appellants' failure to bring the motion in a timely manner.

The moving party sought to file late property assessment appeals for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, claiming they did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) for the 2021 taxation year, as they did not receive the notice and filed an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via a tax bill.

However, the Board denied the request for the 2020 taxation year because no evidence was provided regarding the failure to receive notice for that year.

The motion was granted in part.

The City of Ottawa appealed the assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The Owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement, which the Board issued as decisions for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The Owner sought to set aside the decisions, claiming it did not receive notice of the appeals.

The Board initiated a review of the decisions.

The Board found that the Owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own carelessness.

The Board held that the deeming provision in Rule 39 (deemed consent to settlement if no response is filed) is absolute and within the Board's jurisdiction to impose.

The Board confirmed the decisions but allowed the Owner's late-filed 2020 appeal to proceed because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their industrial building for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $3,804,000 to $1,100,000 due to environmental contamination.

The Board excluded the Appellants' expert reports and cost-to-cure evidence because they were not disclosed in accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

Without quantitative evidence of remediation costs, the Board accepted MPAC's uncontested replacement cost new less depreciation valuation.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,804,000 and found no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellants filed appeals regarding the returned assessment of a property for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

A settlement conference was scheduled, but the appellants failed to attend or respond to communications from the respondent and the Board.

The respondent requested that the appeals be dismissed for abandonment.

The Board found that the appellants had abandoned the appeals by failing to comply with the Board's Rules and dismissed the appeals for all taxation years.

The moving party, 1033291 Ontario Inc., brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year.

The moving party's president filed an affidavit stating he did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the change in classification upon receiving a tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they were entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The moving party brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year regarding a property assessed in both residential and farm classes.

The Board found that filing a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC was a mandatory precondition to an appeal under the Assessment Act.

The Board concluded there were no extenuating circumstances to extend the time to file an RfR, and the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal.

The motion was denied.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a mixed-use property for the 2017-2021 taxation years.

The Board first determined the current value of the property to be $286,000 using the cost approach.

The Board then considered whether an equitable reduction was warranted due to severe storm water flooding and water damage that negatively impacted the property compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

Finding that the property was inferior to comparable properties due to these issues, the Board granted an equitable reduction, lowering the assessed value to $127,000.

The owner requested a review of a Board decision that declined to correct a palpable error on the assessment rolls for the 1995-2011 taxation years.

The error involved a duplicate 'parent' assessment roll number remaining on the rolls after the property was converted to condominiums, resulting in double taxation.

The reviewing Vice-Chair found that the original decision erred in law by failing to balance the prejudice to the owner (who faced significant tax arrears and penalties) against the principles of finality and timing.

The Board varied the decision, finding that section 40.1(a) of the Assessment Act applied, and ordered the correction of the assessment rolls to remove the duplicate roll number.

The Applicants applied to the City of Hamilton to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicants' necessary household expenses exceeded their income, their total assets at the end of the year significantly exceeded their shortfall.

The Board concluded that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2020 and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their single-family detached home for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

They argued the current value assessment was too high and sought an equity reduction.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and found the correct current value was higher than the returned assessment, but confirmed the returned assessment because the respondent did not seek an increase.

The Board also dismissed the request for an equity reduction, finding the respondent's equity analysis more reliable.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of two townhouse complexes, arguing they should be classified as 'new multi-residential' rather than 'multi-residential' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The properties underwent extensive renovations between 2012 and 2014 while vacant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the renovations did not meet the statutory requirement of being 'built' or 'converted from a non-residential use' pursuant to a building permit.

The Board held that the correct property class for the 2016 taxation year remained multi-residential.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value for 2017-2020 was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself, determining a value of $5,615,000.

For the 2021 taxation year, following the severance and sale of two parcels of land, the Board reduced the assessment to $3,706,000.

The Board also determined the correct classification and apportionment among industrial, industrial excess land, and commercial classes, and found no evidence to support an equity reduction.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a 256.63-acre vacant parcel for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The property consisted of wetlands, woodlands, and other lands subject to a holding provision under the zoning by-law.

MPAC argued the highest and best use of the other lands was industrial development, valuing the property at $1,094,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that industrial development was not legally permitted due to the holding provision, and there was no reasonable probability of its removal.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $499,000 and reclassified the property from the Industrial Property Class to the Commercial Property Class, with the wetland portion classified as Eligible Conservation Land for 2017 and 2018.