Property Tax Assessment

MPAC brought a motion to strike portions of the City of Kitchener's expert report that raised issues not pleaded in its Statement of Response.

The City argued MPAC lacked standing because it served its Statement of Response late.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC had standing as a statutory party and restricted the City from raising unpleaded issues, limiting the appeal to fair market rent.

However, because MPAC served its Statement of Response late without exceptional circumstances, the Board ruled MPAC had no pleadings, could not file its expert report, and is deemed not to oppose any future settlement.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached residence for the 2020 taxation year, arguing the current value assessment of $1,789,000 was too high and should be reduced to $1,515,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and found the correct current value to be $1,846,000.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was required based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity.

Since the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,789,000.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The City of Ottawa and MPAC opposed the motion because the City had previously delivered a Notice of Higher Assessment (NOHA).

The Appellant argued the NOHA was improperly served and filed, breaching several Board Rules.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City properly served the NOHA on the Appellant by mail in accordance with the Rules, precluding an automatic withdrawal under Rule 72.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to permit the withdrawal under Rule 73, finding no prejudice to the Appellant that would justify ignoring the City's validly issued NOHA.

The motion to withdraw was denied.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017-2020 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $409,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and determined the current value to be $356,307.

The Board further applied an equity adjustment pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final equitable value to $330,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $810,000 was too high and should be reduced to $789,000 based on the assessment of a similar unit in the building.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented comparable sales evidence demonstrating the current value was actually $1,026,000, but requested the returned value of $810,000 be confirmed.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales evidence to be the best evidence of current value and rejected the appellants' equity argument, finding no further downward adjustment was warranted.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed at $810,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-residential cooperative housing building for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The parties reached a settlement agreement during the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the assessed value reduced from $30,079,000 to $28,500,000 on consent.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for disclosure in an ongoing property assessment appeal concerning a Magna manufacturing facility.

The City sought detailed financial and operational data, including manufacturing costs and equipment replacement costs, to assess functional obsolescence using the cost approach.

Magna opposed the motion, arguing the requests were disproportionate and irrelevant as it was not using a full model plant methodology.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested information relevant to the dispute over functional obsolescence and proportional to the significant valuation impact, ordering disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of their property, which had been changed by MPAC from residential to commercial for the period of January 1, 2019 to September 12, 2019.

The property was zoned residential but was leased to a for-profit daycare operator during that time.

The Assessment Review Board found that property classification is based on actual use rather than zoning.

Because the daycare was a for-profit operation, the property fell into the commercial property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Board confirmed the commercial classification for the disputed period.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for disclosure in its property assessment appeals regarding three Loblaw Big Box grocery stores.

The City requested various documents including leases, sale agreements, appraisals, building plans, construction costs, and store sales data to support its valuation experts' analyses using the income, direct sales comparison, and cost approaches.

The property owners opposed most requests, arguing the documents were irrelevant, not probative, or highly confidential.

The Assessment Review Board granted the majority of the City's requests, finding the documents relevant to the issues in dispute and their disclosure proportionate, while noting that relevance for disclosure purposes does not determine ultimate admissibility or weight at the hearing.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a seasonal waterfront property on Jack Lake for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had returned a value of $600,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable properties presented by both parties, rejecting those with significant disparities in living area.

Based on the two most comparable properties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $556,000 and found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

The appellant applied to the City of Brampton for a vacant unit rebate for an industrial condominium for the 2014 taxation year.

The City denied the application on the basis that the appellant failed to meet its evidentiary requirements, specifically regarding proof of the vacancy period and efforts to lease the property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's evidence, which included a prior lease, bankruptcy documents, and photographs of exterior signage advertising the property for sale or lease, sufficiently met the requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the City was ordered to pay a rebate of $4,279.90.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issue by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events and ignored multiple warnings from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant breached the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Given the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the resulting prejudice to MPAC, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Brampton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals because the appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appeals were designated as 'Legacy Appeals', which are subject to accelerated timelines and an expedited dismissal process for non-compliance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to comply with the deadline and that its explanation of inadvertence and misunderstanding was unsatisfactory.

Weighing the prejudice to both parties and the need to strictly enforce the Rules for Legacy Appeals, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant requested a review of a previous Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant argued that it did not receive notice of the conference.

The Board found that the appellant had filed all necessary materials prior to the conference and failed to attend through no fault of its own.

The motion was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellant applied for property tax rebates for its brick manufacturing facility under sections 357 and 364 of the Municipal Act for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the section 357 appeal, finding that the kilns were shut down primarily due to economic factors rather than repairs or renovations.

However, the Board allowed the section 364 appeals, finding that the specified kilns, holding rooms, and track were eligible for a vacant unit rebate as they were clearly delineated and unused for at least 90 consecutive days.

The parties were directed to confer on the quantum of the rebate.

The appellant appealed a City Council decision granting a property tax refund of $51.77 for fire damage, arguing the refund was too low and the property's value was zero.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide any supporting documentation or evidence of costs incurred to restore the property, contrary to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to cancel interest and penalties.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order permitting the late filing of its property assessment appeals for the 2018 taxation year.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because it had received the notice of assessment.

However, the Board granted the moving party's alternative request to revise its existing 2019 appeal to reflect the 2018 taxation year, finding that a clerical error had occurred and that the appeal form substantially complied with the Rules.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their 86.64-acre property, which included both farmed and non-farmed land.

MPAC assessed the current value at $486,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $359,000 based on a neighbouring property's assessment and various negative property features such as poor drainage and swampy areas.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct comparison approach, using six comparable sales with a median time-adjusted sale price of $492,683, provided the best evidence of current value.

The Board noted that the appellants provided no sales evidence and no quantitative evidence to support a reduction for the negative features, which MPAC had already accounted for by applying lower soil class ratings to the non-farmed acreage.

The returned assessment of $486,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2013-2016 property tax assessments for a commercial property operating as an automobile dealership.

The property was assessed at $3,513,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value, claiming a deduction for functional (showroom) obsolescence and a lower land value due to traffic counts.

The Board found that the property, built in 2005, was too new to qualify for showroom obsolescence.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable land sales and determined the correct current value to be $3,367,000.

No equitable reduction was granted as the appellant provided no evidence to support one.

The respondents brought motions to strike the appellant's Amended Statement of Issues and Reply, arguing it was served past the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that its rules do not provide for striking pleadings.

However, because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for missing the deadline to serve its Amended Statement of Issues, it cannot raise any new issues at the hearing that were not in its original Statement of Issues or its Amended Reply.

The Amended Reply was served on time and may be relied upon.