Property Tax Assessment

The County of Wellington appealed the property tax assessments of six licensed gravel pits, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) undervalued the properties and incorrectly classified them.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct interpretation of section 6(2) of O. Reg. 282/98, finding that specific portions of the licensed areas actively used for or in connection with extraction, processing, and related activities fall into the Industrial property class, while the remainder defaults to the Residential or Farm class.

Applying the cost approach, the Board rejected the County's proposed valuation based on general industrial land and MPAC's formula based on marginal farmland, instead relying on a recent sale of a licensed gravel pit to determine a current value of $15,080 per acre for the land portion.

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

The Appellant appealed the property assessment for a warehouse property in West Nipissing.

The Appellant failed to attend the scheduled video hearing and did not file any documentary evidence in advance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Appellant had a reasonable opportunity to participate, having received proper notice.

The Board dismissed the appeals due to non-attendance and abandonment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached residence for the 2020 taxation year, arguing the current value assessment of $394,000 was too high and should be reduced to $340,000.

MPAC requested the returned value be confirmed.

The Board found the best evidence of current value was the unadjusted sale of the subject property in May 2015 for $425,000.

The Board also found that based on MPAC's equity study, no equitable reduction was warranted.

Since MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $394,000.

The appellant appealed the effective date of a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

The appellant argued the effective date should be July 3, 2017, when the facility went 'live' and began shipping inventory.

The respondent MPAC argued the effective date should be no later than February 1, 2017, when the municipality certified the building as suitable for occupancy.

The Board found that under s. 34(1)(a) of the Assessment Act, the test is when the building 'commences to be used for any purpose', not when it is fully operational or used for its ultimate intended purpose.

The Board concluded the building was used for any purpose by February 1, 2017, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the 2020 current value assessment of their single-family bungalow property, which was assessed at $997,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $562,290 based on comparable properties and lot shape restrictions.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation proposed a value of $932,635 based on two comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable properties provided by both parties, disregarding those without recent sales or with significant differences.

Based on the two best comparable sales, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $818,000.

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

The appellant appealed the 2020 property assessment of her single-family dwelling, a 'bungaloft', which was assessed at $551,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be $620,000 based on its time-adjusted 2015 sale price.

However, applying the principle of equitable assessment, the Board reduced the assessment to $548,000 to match the assessment of a nearly identical property located directly across the street.

The moving party sought to file late appeals for property assessments from 2012 to 2017, alleging palpable errors regarding the inclusion of a parking space and locker.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to provide affidavit evidence as required by Rule 64.

Furthermore, the moving party did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged errors were inadvertent, unintentional, obvious, and plain, nor did they justify why the Board should exercise its discretion to allow late appeals.

The moving party property owner brought a motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding the assessment of its property for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The moving party and MPAC believed an agreement had been reached based on email correspondence, but the municipality argued it had not accepted the offer.

The Assessment Review Board found that the municipality's emails did not constitute an absolute and unequivocal acceptance of the proposed terms, meaning no binding settlement was reached.

However, finding exceptional circumstances, the Board extended the timeline in the Schedule of Events to allow the parties to file their documentation, with the exception of any expert reports from MPAC.

The appellants appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of their vacant farm property, which was assessed at $40,500.

The property consists of 80.52 acres, mostly swampy, with only summer seasonal access.

MPAC proposed a value of $33,500 based on comparable sales, but the Board found MPAC's comparables superior due to year-round access and better soil quality.

The Board preferred the appellants' comparable sale of a similar property with no access, which sold for a time-adjusted price of $75.28 per acre.

Applying this rate, the Board reduced the assessment to $6,062 and found no further adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of their home, arguing it was incorrectly classified as a waterfront property.

The property is separated from the river by an Ontario Power Generation shoreline and features a 100-foot sheer cliff, making access to the water impossible without constructing a stairway.

The Assessment Review Board found that because the appellant did not have current and ongoing use of the shoreline to access the water, the property was incorrectly assessed as a waterfront property.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to provide comparable sales evidence for non-waterfront properties to determine the correct current value.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a lower current value based on a time-adjusted sale price of the subject property, while the respondent MPAC argued for a value based on the Cost Approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's time-adjusted sale price as unreliable and found the Cost Approach provided the best evidence of value.

The Board ordered a decrease in the returned assessment from $2,548,000 to $2,437,000.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.

The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.

While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the Applicant had sufficient assets, including approximately $69,000 in a bank account, and had already paid the 2019 property taxes.

The Board concluded the Applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant's monthly income exceeded her monthly expenses and that she had successfully paid her 2019 property taxes, including arrears from 2018.

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

The appellant appealed the commercial classification of his mixed-use property, arguing the second floor and basement should be classified as residential.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant met the burden of proof to show the second floor and basement were used or intended to be used for residential purposes.

The Board applied the Intracorp test, considering the actual features of the construction and the lack of substantial indication of non-residential use.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the first floor remaining commercial and the second floor and basement reclassified as residential.

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 filed a Notice of Higher Assessment (NOHA).

The Board found that the City's NOHA was properly filed and that the Board had committed a clerical error in initially processing the Appellant's withdrawal.

The Board refused the request to withdraw the appeals and ordered an amended schedule of events to proceed with the matter.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their property.

A hearing was scheduled by telephone conference call, but the appellant did not attend.

The respondent noted that the notice of hearing was sent by email, whereas previous correspondence had been sent by regular mail, raising concerns about whether the appellant received proper notice.

The Assessment Review Board adjourned the matter, ordered the hearing to be rescheduled with notice sent by regular mail, and directed the parties to serve and file their documentation in advance of the new hearing date.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of his 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board, acting under delegated authority, dismissed the application.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring him to provide sufficient financial documentation, such as evidence of monthly expenses and all assets and liabilities, to prove his inability to pay.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their newly built residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellants argued for a lower valuation based on lot frontage differences and a cost approach, while MPAC relied on a direct comparison approach using time-adjusted sales of similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the direct comparison approach, selecting a highly comparable property and making a downward adjustment for the lack of a finished basement in the subject property.

The Board determined the current value to be $2,463,000 and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The appellant requested an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to properties not under appeal.

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

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Toronto, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to the terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.