Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the 2021-2024 property assessments for a commercial property in St. Catharines.

The Assessment Review Board determined the 2016 current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, rejecting the income and cost approaches.

The Board found the correct current value to be $285,000, down from the assessed $313,000.

The Board dismissed the appellant's request for an equity adjustment because the appellant failed to comply with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding the disclosure of its equity calculation method.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion for disclosure of rent rolls and income and expense statements from the property owner, and Property Income and Expense Return information from MPAC, for the purpose of determining the current value of the subject multi-residential properties.

The property owner opposed the motion, arguing the requested documents from 2018-2022 were not relevant to the 2016 valuation date and that it did not maintain property-specific income statements.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the income approach to valuation and proportionate to the issues in dispute, ordering the property owner to disclose the available 2018-2020 rent rolls and combined income-expense statements.

The appellant appealed the 2022-2024 property assessment of a commercial shopping centre in Thunder Bay, arguing the returned value of $54,985,000 was too high.

MPAC sought a reduction to $54,322,000 based on the income approach, while the City sought an increase to $61,442,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the income and paired-sales approaches, finding the best evidence of current value was the average of two actual sales of the subject property from 2013 and 2021, adjusted for time.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $51,013,000 and found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their residential property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

The parties presented direct comparison approaches that were very close in value, leading the Board to determine the current value at the mid-point of $2,073,000.

On the issue of equitable assessment, the Board reviewed the assessment to sales ratio studies provided by both parties.

Finding that the most similar properties in the vicinity had a median ratio of 0.945, the Board concluded a reduction was necessary to achieve equity.

The assessment was reduced by 5.5% to $1,959,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of 59 Glen Street for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, arguing the current value was incorrect and raising a boundary dispute.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to determine boundary lines or land titles.

On the issue of current value, the Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparables as they lacked valid sales data.

Relying on the respondent's comparables but applying a 40% reduction for the subject property's inferior condition, the Board determined the current value to be $37,632.

The Board then applied a 10% equitable reduction based on an assessment-to-sales ratio analysis, resulting in a final assessed value of $34,000.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to dismiss Canuck Properties Ltd.'s property assessment appeals for the 2022-2024 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The City argued that the same issues had been decided in a prior appeal proceeding for the 2017-2020 taxation years, which was settled by the tenant without Canuck's active participation.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the strict requirements for issue estoppel were met, it would be a real injustice to apply the doctrine because Canuck was never served with a Statement of Issues in the prior proceeding, constituting an incurable procedural deficiency.

The Board also declined to dismiss the appeals for abuse of process, finding that preventing relitigation would condone a breach of procedural fairness.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2023 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board conducted a contextual analysis of her income, expenses, assets, and liabilities.

The Board found that while the applicant demonstrated an inability to pay, she had spent $2,277.76 on discretionary expenses (cigarettes and music store purchases) which could have been used toward her property taxes.

Consequently, the Board allowed the application in part, cancelling $3,290.41 of the $5,568.17 requested, finding the inability to pay that portion was due to sickness.

The appellants appealed the 2024 property assessment of their single-family detached home to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the assessed value of $239,000 was too high and should be $188,840.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the appellants.

Finding that MPAC's closest comparable property in the same homogenous neighbourhood was the most reliable indicator of value, the Board determined the correct current value to be $211,000.

The Board further found that no equitable reduction was warranted based on MPAC's equity analysis.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $211,000.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2023 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Board found that the applicant and her son had sufficient monthly income, significant cash savings, and had already paid the 2023 property taxes in full without incurring financial hardship.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2023 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's monthly income, supplemented by financial support from his family, exceeded his reported expenses.

Because the Applicant was able to draw upon available resources to meet his financial obligations and successfully paid his 2023 property taxes, the Board concluded he failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the supplementary and annual property assessments for a newly built seasonal dwelling.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the current value of the property from $581,000 to $498,000 based on comparable sales, particularly a nearby property with similar beach access.

The Board also changed the effective date of the supplementary assessment from March 2, 2023, to June 20, 2024, based on the appellant's evidence of when the property was first used.

No equitable adjustment was made.

The applicant applied to the Township of Laird to have his 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Township delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant had over $11,000 in his bank accounts at the end of 2023, while his property taxes were $2,167.90.

The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The Applicant applied to the City of Hamilton to have his 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the Applicant's financial evidence, which showed an average monthly household income of approximately $11,997 and positive bank balances at the end of the year after the taxes were paid in full.

The Board found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes levied in 2023 and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2023 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant was sick and unable to work, she had access to a line of credit and credit cards which she used to meet her financial obligations, including paying her property taxes in full for the year.

The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the Applicant had a positive bank balance of over $13,000 at the end of 2023 and chose to save the funds rather than pay the $2,388.97 in levied taxes.

The Board concluded the Applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the municipality for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of 2023 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The municipality delegated its authority to the Assessment Review Board.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Board noted the application appeared to have been filed after the statutory deadline of the last day of February 2024.

The Board issued an interim order requiring the municipality to provide the exact filing date and submissions on whether the Board has jurisdiction to extend the deadline, with an opportunity for the applicant to respond.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a parking garage and waterpark complex for the 2015 through 2024 taxation years.

The Board found that MPAC properly applied higher omitted assessments for the years in question.

The Board determined that the highest and best use of the property was its current use.

Applying the cost approach for the waterpark and the income approach for the parking garage, the Board concluded the correct current value of the subject property was $48,476,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their residential property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $225,000 to $199,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) proposed a reduction to $218,000 based on time-adjusted comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable properties and Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis, finding the current value to be $218,000 and concluding that no equitable adjustment was required.

The appellant property owner applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that renovations commenced in 2022 prevented the normal use of the land.

The City of Barrie denied the application on the basis that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had already reduced the property's assessed value in 2019 to account for the vacancy and anticipated renovations following the departure of an anchor tenant.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 357(1)(g) is intended to address only mid-year changes that a taxpayer cannot address in an appeal of the assessed value.

Because the 2022 renovations were anticipated and accounted for in the 2019 valuation adjustment, they did not constitute a mid-year change warranting further tax relief.