Property Tax Assessment

The moving parties requested leave to file late appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years regarding a property assessment.

The moving parties argued they believed the resolution of a 2016 appeal would automatically apply to subsequent years.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) for accepting late appeals were not met, as there was no evidence that the moving parties failed to receive a notice of assessment or filed within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years because the owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the required deadline.

The owner did not respond to MPAC's requests or the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the Rules was a clear, egregious, and unilateral breach that prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The assessed person requested the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that was withdrawn in error.

The applicant had two appeals for the 2018 taxation year and mistakenly withdrew the appeal for the corrected assessment instead of the original assessment after reaching a settlement with MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122(a), as it was made by a party within 30 days and the withdrawal was a good faith error.

The request was granted and the appeal was reinstated.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of the 2017 assessment for a residential property, claiming he never received the assessment notice.

The Assessment Review Board denied the application, finding that Rule 26(b) does not apply to residential properties because the Assessment Act requires a mandatory request for reconsideration before an appeal can be filed.

Under subsection 40(4) of the Act, the Board can only extend the deadline for a request for reconsideration if the application is brought during the taxation year in question.

Since the application was brought in 2018 for a 2017 assessment, the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension.

The respondent applied to the municipality for a tax refund due to renovations but failed to pay the required filing fee imposed by municipal by-law.

The respondent subsequently appealed to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the municipality failed to make a decision.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Board granted the motion, finding that because the statutory filing fee was not paid, the application was never properly made to the municipality, and therefore no valid appeal could lie to the Board.

The moving party applied for permission to file a late appeal of the 2017 assessment for a vacant residential property.

The moving party failed to file any affidavit evidence to prove the essential elements required by Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the Board noted that Rule 26(b) does not apply to residential properties, as a request for reconsideration is a mandatory prerequisite for an appeal.

The application was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the appellant for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set by the Assessment Review Board and did not respond to multiple requests from MPAC.

The Board found the appellant in clear and egregious breach of the Rules, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the owner for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to provide his Statement of Issues by the date specified by the Assessment Review Board and did not respond to MPAC's correspondence or the motion.

The Board found that the owner's breach of the Rules prejudiced MPAC by straining its resources and causing it to incur additional expenses.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $2,072,000 to $1,700,000.

MPAC and the Town of Oakville argued the assessment was fair or should be higher.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $2,123,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted.

Because the determined current value exceeded the returned assessment and no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $2,072,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their waterfront home, which MPAC had assessed at $410,000 and $409,000 respectively.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $377,000 based on an equity analysis, but the Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act, as the comparable sales provided were not truly comparable.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $289,000 for both taxation years.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2017 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income, expenses, and bank balances.

The Board found that the applicant's household had sufficient funds to meet its monthly obligations, including property taxes, and maintained a bank balance of over $6,000 at the end of 2017.

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

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the current value should be reduced from $678,000 to $636,145 based on factors such as floor height, customization, and parking.

MPAC relied on builder sales of comparable units in the same building to support its assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellants' arguments regarding floor height and customization were plausible, their monetized values were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

The Board determined that the best comparable properties supported a value of at least $673,216 before accounting for an additional parking spot, which would increase the value beyond MPAC's assessment.

The Board therefore confirmed the assessed value of $678,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set in the schedule of events and did not respond to MPAC's subsequent request.

The Assessment Review Board found the owner in clear and egregious breach of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to the owner's failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner breached the Rules of Practice and Procedure in a clear and unilateral way, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The applicant applied for a reduction or cancellation of his 2017 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant failed to attend the peremptory hearing.

The City presented evidence that the applicant owned multiple properties with significant equity and had already paid his 2017 taxes in full.

The Assessment Review Board proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application, finding no demonstrated inability to pay.

The appellant applied to the municipality for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2016 property taxes under s. 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The municipality denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the appellant's financial situation, noting a household income of approximately $58,790, a bank balance exceeding $9,000 at the end of the year, and that the 2016 property taxes had been fully paid.

The Board found that the appellant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of their 16.9-acre rural residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' approach of applying a percentage increase to the previous assessment, preferring MPAC's sales comparison approach.

The Board determined the current value to be $186,000 based on the time-adjusted sales of two comparable properties.

The Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment.

The 2017 assessment was confirmed at $183,000 to avoid an unfair increase without notice, and the 2018 assessment was reduced from $221,000 to $186,000.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income and expenses, noting that the family's monthly income exceeded their expenses and they had no mortgage or reported debt.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their seasonal waterfront property in Terrace Bay for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $314,000 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The Appellants argued the value should be between $150,000 and $180,000 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sales supported the $314,000 assessment.

The Board also determined that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not warranted, as the evidence did not show that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of his condominium unit for the 2018 taxation year, arguing the assessed value of $216,000 was too high.

The appellant contended that a condominium by-law restricting single-family use and effectively banning student rentals negatively impacted the property's value compared to neighbouring buildings without such restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that the by-law change constituted a substantial change in permitted uses, rendering pre-bylaw sales and sales from neighbouring buildings less comparable.

Relying on a post-bylaw sale of a similar unit, the Board reduced the assessment to $182,500.