Property Tax Assessment

The applicant, a commercial tenant responsible for municipal taxes, sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment.

Although the applicant was entitled to receive a notice of assessment and the municipality failed to provide it, the applicant received supplementary tax bills in July 2018 but did not file its appeal until January 2019.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant became aware of the assessment upon receiving the tax bills and failed to file within the 30-day period required by Rule 26(b).

The Board declined to extend the timeline under Rule 17, noting the unexplained five-month delay, and dismissed the application.

The appellant filed property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years regarding a property in Markstay-Warren.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled telephone hearing and did not properly request an adjournment or obtain the consent of the respondents.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals due to the appellant's non-attendance and failure to provide sufficient reasons for an adjournment.

The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought leave to file late appeals of omitted property assessments for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The tenant argued it filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments under Rule 26(b) because it had not received formal notices of assessment, and alternatively sought an extension under Rule 17.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the 30-day period under Rule 26(b) began when the tenant received the supplementary tax bills, not when formal notice was received.

The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 17 to extend the statutory appeal deadline set out in the Assessment Act.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years due to his failure to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Board's Rules.

The self-represented appellant opposed the motion, indicating he was not computer literate and did not receive MPAC's email communications.

The Board denied the motion, finding that while the appellant failed to comply with the Rules, his non-compliance was not wilful and dismissing the appeals would cause him disproportionate prejudice.

The Board ordered the appeals to proceed under a revised schedule and directed that future service on the appellant be by regular mail or courier.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of six farm properties in the Town of Leamington for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board had to determine the current value of each property and whether those values should be reduced for equitable assessment.

The Board determined the current values using a combination of the appellants' time-adjusted sale prices for the subject properties and MPAC's comparable sales approach, depending on the reliability of the sale data for each property.

The Board then found that reductions were necessary for equitable assessment, preferring the appellants' equity analysis based on adjacent similar properties over MPAC's broader regional analysis.

The appeals were allowed and the assessments were reduced.

The applicants requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision, arguing that MPAC's evidence was unreliable and that the City of Brampton should not have participated in the appeal.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicants failed to establish any significant error of fact or law in the original decision.

The Board noted that the City of Brampton is a statutory party to every appeal under the Assessment Act and had a right to participate.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his farm property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $318,000 due to the presence of asbestos insulation.

MPAC defended its returned assessment of $396,000 based on the cost and direct comparison approaches.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's cost approach due to lack of detailed breakdown but relied on the sales evidence.

The Board found the property would likely sell for less than comparable properties due to the asbestos issue, applying a $120,000 cost-to-cure reduction to arrive at a current value of $459,000.

Because MPAC did not serve a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $396,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Toad Hall Construction Inc. for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found the appellant's breach to be clear, egregious, and unilateral, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants, owners of a seasonal waterfront property, brought a motion under Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting that MPAC disclose various property assessment details, calculations, and inspection notes.

The Board denied the motion in its entirety, finding that the appellants failed to sufficiently identify the specific documents requested, the specific issues in dispute, or how the requested information was relevant and proportionate to the appeals.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of her property assessments for the 2009 to 2016 taxation years, arguing that personal stress prevented her from managing her tax affairs.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide evidence that she did not receive the notices of assessment for the years in question.

Under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, proof of non-receipt of notice is an essential requirement for granting a late appeal.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years because the owner failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline set out in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The owner did not respond to the motion or cure the breach.

The Board found that the owner's non-compliance was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management abilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to file late property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that previous appeals for 2014-2016 were only settled in 2019.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no evidence that the moving party failed to receive the notices of assessment, which is required to allow a late appeal under Rule 26(b).

Furthermore, the Board found no palpable error on the assessment roll that would justify extending the time for an appeal under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $417,000 but recommended a reduction to $379,000.

The appellants argued the value should be $220,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving its proposed current value, as its comparable properties were significantly different and sold well before the valuation date.

The appellants' evidence was also insufficient to determine current value.

Consequently, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $320,000.

The Board further held that an equitable reduction was not required.

The requester applied for a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the equity of his property assessment.

He argued the Board applied the wrong legal test for determining similar properties, failed to address jurisprudence on central tendency, and ignored his stratification argument.

The Associate Chair found that the original panel erred in law by applying a rejected test for similarity ('general nature, character or function') rather than considering all points of comparison as required by recent Divisional Court jurisprudence.

Concluding this error likely affected the outcome, the Associate Chair cancelled the decision with respect to the equity issue and ordered a new hearing before a different panel.

The Complainant appealed the City of Toronto's denial of vacant unit rebate applications for the 2008 through 2014 taxation years.

The Complainant, who held a 50-year lease for the building, argued it was the de facto owner due to its extensive rights and obligations under the lease.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Complainant was a tenant, not an owner within the meaning of section 331 of the City of Toronto Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that the property was not an eligible property under section 38(5)(b) of Ontario Regulation 121/07 because it was leased to a tenant in possession of the leasehold interest.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their semi-detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high due to an incorrect lot size measurement.

MPAC acknowledged the lot depth error and recommended a reduced current value of $496,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The Town recommended $476,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best comparable sales supported a current value of $470,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $470,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-storey detached home in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $886,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $800,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $917,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current value.

The Board applied a median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.911, resulting in an equitable assessment of $835,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family dwelling, arguing the returned value of $2,624,000 was too high compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

MPAC had recommended a settlement value of $2,362,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the current value of the subject property to be $2,148,000.

The Board further found that no reduction was required for equitable assessment, as the assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties fell within an acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $2,148,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a three-unit residential property in Kingston for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $354,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $246,000 and MPAC argued for $470,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data and determined the current value to be $406,000.

Applying an equitable reduction factor of 0.844 pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessment to $343,000.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of her residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property, a ravine lot with a steep slope, was assessed at $606,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to the limited usable backyard space caused by the steep slope.

The Assessment Review Board found that the adjustment for abutting a ravine should be reduced by half due to the steepness and lack of privacy.

Applying this adjustment and MPAC's market reduction, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $499,000.