Property Tax Assessment

The applicant filed an application with the municipality for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty, which was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to attend two scheduled pre-hearing teleconferences without explanation, despite being notified and reminded.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for non-attendance.

The appellant sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals after the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) filed a Statement of Response seeking a higher assessment based on the property's development potential.

The appellant argued that MPAC's Statement of Response lacked particularity and failed to comply with Rule 38(7), and that the appellant would be prejudiced if not allowed to withdraw.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC's pleading provided a clear evidentiary pathway and complied with the rules.

The Board also held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, as MPAC is entitled under the Assessment Act to seek a higher assessment during an appeal.

The City of Toronto appealed the property assessment of a vacant commercial land parcel, seeking an increase in its current value from $8,495,000 to $12,812,000 for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The assessed owner argued the property's sale price was a 'hold out' premium and not reflective of open market value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the time-adjusted sale price of $12,812,000 was the best indicator of current value, supported by the direct comparison approach using other properties in the same development assembly and similar development sites in the vicinity.

The Board ordered the assessment increased to $12,812,000.

The moving party, a property owner appealing their residential property assessment, brought a motion for disclosure requesting four categories of information from the respondent assessment corporation.

The requests sought reasons for the effective year built, market evidence for the current value assessment, and lists of similar properties.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had already provided the relevant information or that the information was readily accessible to the moving party through the respondent's online database.

The Board also found that the requests for lists of similar properties were overly broad and disproportionate.

The applicant filed an application to have its 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty.

A pre-hearing event was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment and dismissed the application for non-attendance pursuant to Rule 104 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their residential property in Toronto for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation returned a current value assessment of $597,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $530,000 and $540,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable properties, renovations, and locational issues, finding that the correct current value was $652,000.

The Board also found no justification for an equity reduction.

Since the respondent did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $597,000.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property tax assessment for a Hindu temple, arguing that extensive travel and reliance on a lawyer caused the delay.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 26(b) because the appeal was not filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board also declined to extend time under Rule 17, noting that specific rules prevail over general ones, and that the underlying issue of tax exemption falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice, not the Board.

The appellant requested an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to commercial properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requester sought to reinstate a deemed property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year after it was dismissed.

The 2020 appeal was deemed from a 2019 appeal that had been dismissed due to the requester's failure to attend a hearing.

The Board found that the requester failed to update her contact information or inquire about the status of her appeals.

Because the request to reinstate the 2019 appeal was filed late and dismissed, the Board held that the 2020 deemed appeal could not be reinstated, as its dismissal flowed directly from the 2019 appeal.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their single-storey detached residence for the 2020 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $904,000.

The appellants argued the comparable sales used by MPAC had finished basements, unlike the subject property, making them superior.

The Board accepted the appellants' evidence regarding the finished basements of the comparable properties and found that the subject property's current value would not exceed the time-adjusted sale price of the most comparable property, which was $786,022.

The Board reduced the assessment to $786,000 and found no equity reduction was required.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The matter was appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring the submission of evidence by a specified date and subsequently requested an adjournment at the merit hearing.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-compliance with the procedural order and the resulting prejudice to the municipality.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's current value assessment of $377,000 for a 50-acre vacant property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The respondent's expert provided evidence using a direct comparison approach, adjusting for acreage and building costs.

The appellant challenged the transparency of the assessment process but did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the valuation or establish the need for an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent's expert evidence and confirmed the current value assessment at $377,000.

The appellant appealed a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue requesting the Board to dispense with the appellant's witness statement and exclude the witness from testifying because the appellant failed to file the statement by the deadline set out in the schedule of events.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify extending the timeline under Rule 82.

The Board granted the respondent's request, excluded the witness, and ordered the main hearing to be rescheduled.

The moving party, Ploutos Holdings Inc., brought a motion to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party argued that it missed the deadline and subsequently experienced communication issues with the Board when attempting to request an extension.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving party was entitled to receive the notice of assessment, there was no evidence that it failed to receive the notice, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 26(b) for accepting a late appeal.

The appellant appealed the current value assessments of 48 condominium units for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Board accepted MPAC's methodology of using comparable sales from a nearby building but rejected MPAC's upward adjustments and applied a $5,000 downward adjustment to account for the subject properties having outdoor rather than indoor parking.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed 15% negative adjustment and reliance on non-MLS sales.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio in the vicinity was 0.988.

The applicant, acting as the estate trustee for her deceased parents, applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2019 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had significant equity in the mortgage-free property, RRSP savings, and discretionary expenses that prioritized other costs over property taxes.

The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the taxes levied in 2019 and dismissed the application.

Walmart Canada Corp. requested the reinstatement of a property tax assessment appeal that was previously withdrawn, arguing the withdrawal was made in error.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request because the supporting affidavit provided no factual explanation or evidence regarding how the error occurred or who made it.

The Board held that reinstating an appeal without reliable evidence would undermine its rules and process.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel prevented the appellant from appealing the current value assessment of its property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC argued the issues were already decided in a 2015 Board decision concerning the same property for the 2006-2012 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the first part of the issue estoppel test was not met because determining the correct current value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date is not the same question as determining the value for the 2005 and 2008 valuation dates.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments and current value assessments of their residential property for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the property at $381,000 based on the addition of a new building and garages.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $330,000.

The Board reduced the omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 accordingly and found no further reduction for equity was required.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction or cancellation of property taxes for the 2019 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The matter was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing teleconference.

Rather than dismissing the application, the Board adjourned the pre-hearing to a new date, noting that the applicant had submitted documentation and expressed interest in a written hearing.

The Board ordered that the rescheduled pre-hearing be peremptory on the applicant.