Property Tax Assessment

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The appellants argued that the value of the subject property, a shopping mall, should be reduced due to the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its 'state and condition'.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the 'state and condition' paradigm, adopting previous jurisprudence that the Assessment Act provides for a single valuation day (January 1, 2016) for the taxation years in question.

The Board found that the issue of the property's current value as of January 1, 2016, had already been finally decided between the same parties in a previous settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant property owner appealed the municipality's denial of a tax refund application under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for a hotel property undergoing significant renovations.

The Board found that the property met the requirements for a tax reduction for the 2021 taxation year because repairs prevented its normal use.

Rejecting the municipality's valuation-based approach, the Board accepted the appellant's cost-to-cure approach and ordered a tax refund of $39,223 based on the $3.5 million cost of repairs prorated for the 153 days the property was affected in 2021.

The applicant applied for a cancellation of $1,935.69 in property taxes for the 2022 taxation year, citing extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant owned two investment properties and claimed financial hardship due to rogue tenants who failed to pay rent.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial resources, including income, family support, assets, and expenses.

The Board found that the applicant had substantial equity in his properties, unexplained bank deposits, and significant discretionary expenses, demonstrating an ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of St. Catharines to have his 2021 and 2022 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with a Procedural Order requiring him to provide sufficient financial documentation, such as bank statements for the relevant taxation years, to prove his inability to pay.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had sufficient financial resources, including a positive bank balance and significant equity in the subject property, to pay the taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) decision to change the property description of their properties from 'Single Family Detached' to 'Waterfront Dwelling', which increased their current value assessments.

The Assessment Review Board found that the properties did not meet MPAC's criteria for waterfront property, as they lacked direct access to the adjacent canal and were separated from it by a privately owned strip of land that was not a right-of-way, private road, or unopened road.

The Board ordered the property descriptions reverted to 'Single Family Detached' and reduced the assessments to their previous values.

The City of Hamilton requested an order compelling the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to three comparable properties not under appeal.

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

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure.

The applicants applied to the Township of Tiny to have their 2022 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Township delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicants failed to comply with a procedural order requiring them to provide sufficient financial documentation to prove their inability to pay.

The City of Brampton requested a review of a Board decision that dismissed an application to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for a property from 2005 to 2016.

The original Hearing Member found that the errors were not palpable because they were not unintentional and required detailed investigation, and declined to exercise discretion due to the delay in filing an appeal.

On review, the Board found the Hearing Member made significant errors of law.

The Board held that a palpable error under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act does not need to be unintentional, and the exercise of discretion requires a balanced approach weighing prejudice, not a restrictive approach enforcing limitation periods.

Finding that the property was subject to double taxation and no party claimed prejudice from the correction, the Board varied the decision, corrected the palpable errors, and extended the time for bringing appeals.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family dwelling for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,135,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board further found that a reduction was required to reflect equitable assessment with similar lands in the vicinity, applying a median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.875.

The assessment was reduced to $993,000.

The appellant brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking to alter the Schedule of Events to allow for the late filing of an expert report.

The appellant argued that its failure to understand the Board's requirements constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Board found that the appellant had legal representation at the time the deadline passed and for months thereafter, and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The motion was denied as no exceptional circumstances were established.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property assessments for a residential property in Mississauga, arguing the assessment of $2,973,000 (2022) and $2,950,000 (2023) was too high.

The Board found the residence was uninhabitable and should be valued as vacant residential land.

Rejecting both MPAC's and the appellant's proposed valuation methods, the Board relied on the sales of a vacant lot across the street to determine a current value of $1,194,990.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced to $1,194,990.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the property tax assessments of 16 service units located in a mixed-use hotel and residential condominium building.

The appellant argued the units were common elements and should be assessed at a nominal value, while the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed them as 'hotel units' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the service units met the statutory definition of 'hotel units' because they were designated as units, used as part of the hotel operations to maintain mechanical systems, and a statutory declaration had been filed by the previous owner.

The Board confirmed the returned assessments based on the pro forma income capitalization approach.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property tax assessments of his residential dwelling, arguing the $778,000 valuation was too high due to noise from an abutting railway and transitway.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) defended the assessment using comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the comparable sales established a value bracket between $695,505 and $830,095, MPAC failed to justify the specific $778,000 figure, which was merely the output of its mass appraisal model.

The Board set the current value at the midpoint of the bracket, $763,000, and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for a 7.28-acre farm property.

MPAC used the cost approach for improvements and comparable sales for land value, but failed to adequately explain the connection between the comparable properties and the subject property's land value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC did not meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

As neither party provided sufficient evidence to establish the current value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $102,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his 165.4-acre farmland for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $31,500 for 2017 and $47,000 for 2018, using the cost approach.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value, as its evidence regarding soil classification values was inconsistent and lacked a clear path from comparable sales to the subject property's value.

As the appellant also failed to provide sufficient evidence of value, the Board applied the principle from Patry and reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $15,600 for both years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their hunt camp property on Wah Wash Kesh Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $503,000 for 2017 and $465,000 for 2018, but recommended a reduction to $415,000 at the hearing.

The appellants argued for a value between $320,000 and $350,000, relying on a comparable island property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the subject property's unique characteristics placed its value between the appellants' comparable and MPAC's superior comparable, determining the correct current value to be $400,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding his property assessment, arguing procedural unfairness and errors of law.

The Associate-Chair found that the original panel breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to file late disclosure while denying the appellant similar latitude, and erred in law by summarily excluding the appellant's expert reports solely because the authors did not attend the summary proceeding.

The request for review was granted and a new hearing before a different panel was ordered.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of their property at $1,969,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The requester argued the Board made errors of fact by failing to distinguish characteristics of comparable properties and using an erroneous valuation method, and an error of law by not relying on a single comparable sale.

The Associate-Chair dismissed the request, finding the previous panel provided adequate reasons for its choice of comparable properties and valuation method, and did not err in law by considering multiple comparable sales.