Property Tax Assessment

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year, alleging a palpable error in the property's classification as a new construction large industrial property rather than a commercial warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board found that while classification errors can constitute palpable errors under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence of the property's use in 2017.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if an error existed, it was not inadvertent or of conspicuous magnitude, and the Board would not exercise its discretion to extend the appeal deadline where the moving party simply failed to appeal in time.

The moving party sought to file late appeals of property assessments for the 2019 taxation year, arguing that it did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notices because they were mailed to a former address.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party was entitled to receive the notices and did not receive them, it failed to file the appeals within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the deadline, noting the lengthy and unexplained delay between the moving party becoming aware of the assessments and requesting the late appeals.

The motions were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly constructed detached house in an older neighbourhood for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the respondent's comparable sales of new homes in newer subdivisions, preferring a mix of sales that accounted for the property's unique location.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $826,438 and applied an equity reduction factor of 0.89, resulting in a final adjusted assessment of $735,500.

The Appellants appealed the current value assessment of their property located at 19 Bowman Avenue in Brampton for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC and the City of Brampton sought to confirm the assessment at $1,184,000, while the Appellants argued for a reduction to $755,200.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,145,000.

The Board rejected the Appellants' request for a further equitable reduction, finding that the assessment to sales ratios of similar properties in the vicinity were within the acceptable range.

The assessment was reduced to $1,145,000.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $1,456,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $1,200,000 and $1,400,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,498,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,399,000.

The appellants appealed a supplementary assessment for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years arising from alterations to their home, specifically a kitchen renovation.

MPAC had increased the assessment from $803,000 to $864,000.

The Board found MPAC's comparable sales evidence insufficient to support the $61,000 increase, as it lacked details on the nature of the modifications in the comparable properties.

Relying on the appellants' evidence that the alterations cost $47,000, the Board added this cost to the base assessment, resulting in a new current value of $850,000.

The Board declined to make an equity reduction under s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, finding no evidence that similar properties were underassessed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel applied to an appeal of a property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The appellant had previously appealed the assessment for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, which resulted in a Board decision determining the current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

The Board found that the three criteria for issue estoppel were met: the same question was decided, the previous decision was final, and the parties were the same.

Finding no new evidence or change in circumstances to justify declining to apply issue estoppel, the Board granted the motion and confirmed the assessment at $290,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their distribution centre.

MPAC subsequently gave notice that it was seeking to increase the current value assessment.

The appellants brought a motion to constrain MPAC from seeking an increase beyond the value returned on the roll, arguing lack of authority, unfairness, and failure to follow the Board's rules.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 44(3) of the Assessment Act mandates the Board to determine the correct current value starting fresh, and that appellants bear the risk of an increased assessment when they appeal.

The Board also found no prejudice resulting from procedural delays.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes, noting that she was able to pay her taxes as part of her regular mortgage payments while meeting household necessities and incurring discretionary costs.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 and 2019 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicants failed to submit the required documentation to prove their inability to pay and did not attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the 2018 application was filed past the statutory deadline in section 357(3) and was therefore invalid.

Both the 2018 and 2019 applications were dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the applicants' failure to appear.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their residential property in Richmond Hill.

MPAC returned a current value assessment of $3,177,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $2,400,000 based on their own comparable properties and adjustments for property-specific limitations.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was a comparable property sale supporting a value of $3,500,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

Because MPAC did not serve notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,177,000.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their renovated single-family home in Toronto, which MPAC had assessed at $1,507,000.

The Board first determined the current value of the property to be $1,527,000 based on MPAC's time-adjusted sales analysis of comparable properties.

However, upon conducting an equity analysis comparing the subject property to five similarly renovated properties in the vicinity, the Board found that a reduction was necessary to achieve equitable assessment.

The Board ordered the assessment reduced to $1,338,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting leave to file reply evidence regarding equity issues raised by the appellant, Shoppers Drug Mart.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found the reply evidence necessary and appropriate, granting MPAC until January 8, 2021, to serve and file its reply evidence and amending the Schedule of Events accordingly.

The City of Toronto appealed the property assessment of an industrial property owned by 1969697 Ontario Limited.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City reached a settlement after the Owner failed to file its Statement of Response by the required deadline.

MPAC brought a motion, supported by the City, requesting the Board issue a final decision in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The Owner opposed the motion and requested an extension of time to file its response, which it had served four months late.

The Assessment Review Board granted MPAC's motion, finding that the Owner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the late filing under the Board's Rules.

The Board directed the issuance of a decision in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, including omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 following the demolition and rebuilding of the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $2,691,000 based on the direct comparison approach, relying on four comparable sales.

Consequently, the Board reduced the omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 to $1,290,000 and the returned assessments for 2019 and 2020 to $2,691,000.

The Board found no further reduction for equity was required.

The appellants requested the reinstatement of their property assessment appeals, which had been dismissed after they failed to respond to MPAC's motion to dismiss for not filing a Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the threshold requirements for a reinstatement request were met, the appellants failed to establish the grounds for reinstatement under Rule 122.

The appellants argued that MPAC had previously accepted their 2016 Statement of Issues, but the Board noted that the appellants should have raised this argument in response to the original motion to dismiss.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2019 property taxes of $680.86, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a monthly income deficit but significant available credit and a Tax-Free Savings Account.

The Board found that the applicant had not exhausted all available financial resources to mitigate her property tax obligation, having used her credit to pay legal fees instead.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was deemed able to pay the taxes.

The Applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a refund of her 2019 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the Applicant's income, expenses, and assets, including a one-time Indigenous treaty settlement rebate and RRSP savings.

The Board found that the Applicant lived frugally but had sufficient financial resources to pay her property taxes while still affording the basic necessities of life.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of its property assessment appeals, which had been dismissed for failure to serve Statements of Issues on time.

The dismissal order was issued during the retroactive period of the provincial COVID-19 Emergency Order (O. Reg. 73/20), which suspended limitation periods.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error because the Board had publicly stated it would not adjudicate requests to dismiss during the Emergency Order.

The appeals were reinstated without conditions.

The City of Ottawa appealed the property assessment of a vacant lot used as a snow dump, arguing the current value of $1,218,000 was too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the highest and best use of the property was its current use as a snow dump.

The Board calculated the correct current value to be $1,603,750, applying a 15% location adjustment and a $500,000 reduction for exceptional site servicing costs.

The Board also found that the property should be classified in the Commercial Property Class rather than the Industrial Property Class, as the snow dump operation did not constitute 'processing' under the General Regulation.