Property Tax Assessment

The applicants applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had a monthly income exceeding their expenses and possessed significant cash assets and savings.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes and dismissed the application.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and a subsequent amendment to its RSOI in a property assessment appeal.

The City argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to a gap in staffing and unfamiliarity with the file.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor timelines, which did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The appellant property owner appealed the municipality's denial of vacant unit tax rebates for three areas of its industrial property for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that two of the areas were not eligible for the rebate because they contained obsolete machinery and office furnishings, and were not clearly delineated or separated by physical barriers as required by O. Reg. 325/01.

However, the Board found that a portion of the third area was clearly delineated and vacant, and therefore eligible for the rebate.

The Board also held that the appellant was entitled to carry over its 2015 application to 2016, and that the 90-day eligibility rule was satisfied for a 51-day vacancy period in 2017 due to continuous vacancy from the prior year.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 10-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $559,000 based on comparable sales of farm properties.

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

As neither the respondent nor the municipality sought a higher assessment, the original assessment of $550,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $60,000 based on a 2015 estate sale.

MPAC argued the correct current value was $92,000, relying on the direct comparison approach with six comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2015 estate sale was not an open market transaction and accepted MPAC's comparable properties as the best evidence of value.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $92,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family home, seeking an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

While the parties agreed on the current value of $1,450,000, the appellant argued that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's equity study, which relied on a broad 30-property sample, and instead preferred a smaller 5-property sample that demonstrated an average assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.93.

The Board applied this ratio to the current value, granting an equitable reduction to $1,348,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential duplex in Toronto for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

While the parties agreed on the current value of $1,509,000, the appellant sought an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that an equitable reduction was warranted.

The Board preferred MPAC's equity study, which relied on a larger sample size and demonstrated that the median assessment to sale ratio did not require an adjustment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their property for the 2017 taxation year under section 34 of the Assessment Act.

The property, formerly vacant land, had a newly built detached raised bungalow.

MPAC assessed the current value at $962,000, representing a supplementary increase of $705,000.

The appellants argued the current value should be between $750,000 and $800,000 based on their comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' comparable properties to be inferior in age and requiring too many adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding that the correct current value was at least $962,000, and confirmed the supplementary increase of $705,000.

The 99-year-old applicant applied for a refund of her 2018 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had already paid the taxes in full and still retained a monthly surplus, significant equity in her home, and available funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board concluded the applicant was not unable to pay her taxes and dismissed the application.

Following a successful property assessment appeal regarding the classification of their land as managed forests, the self-represented moving parties sought costs against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

They alleged MPAC engaged in frivolous, vexatious, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct by classifying portions of the property as residential.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of unacceptable behavior.

The Board noted that MPAC was applying proper classifications based on Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry eligibility determinations, and a mere difference of opinion on assessment does not constitute bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

The applicant property owner applied to the City of Brampton for a vacancy tax rebate under section 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City granted a partial rebate but denied the rebate for the period from July 1, 2016, to September 15, 2016, because the property was leased during that time.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Assessment Review Board, arguing that the property was vacant during the leased period because it was undergoing renovations and the tenant was granted a rent-free period.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that under clause 1(5)(b) of O. Reg. 325/01, a property is not eligible for the vacancy rebate if a tenant is in possession of the leasehold interest, regardless of whether the tenant is paying rent or fully occupying the space.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC proposed a current value of $36,500 for 2017 and 2018, and $38,500 for 2019, relying on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of the current value, as its comparable sales were not truly comparable and its computer model adjustments were unsupported by evidence.

Because the appellant also failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a particular current value, the Board reduced the assessments to the last uncontested assessed value of $19,800.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a refund of his 2018 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's monthly expenses for basic necessities consistently exceeded his income, forcing him to incur additional mortgage debt to meet his obligations.

The Board concluded that the applicant demonstrated a condition of extreme poverty and ordered a full refund of the $2,297.84 in property taxes levied for 2018.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their newly built semi-detached infill properties for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the correctness of its proposed current values, as it relied on a computer model rather than a proper direct comparison approach.

The Board accepted the appellants' evidence of their purchase prices from the builder as the best evidence of current value, setting it at $925,000 for both properties.

Furthermore, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at an average of 85% of their current values.

To ensure equity, the Board applied this ratio and reduced the assessments of both properties to $786,000.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's decision to decline its vacancy rebate application for the 2017 taxation year.

The City declined the application because the applicant failed to provide required supporting documentation within the prescribed 30-day time limit after receiving an incomplete notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient information for the City to make a decision and failed to cooperate with the City's request for documentation.

The appeal was dismissed, and no vacancy rebate was owed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family residence for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The parties agreed on a current value of $887,000, leaving the sole issue of whether an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the appropriate vicinity for the equity analysis was the specific homogeneous neighbourhood (HGNH E60) rather than a broader area, and that a sample size of ten similar two-storey properties was sufficient.

Applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 from these comparable properties, the Board reduced the assessment to $798,000.

The moving party, owner of a property in St. Catharines, sought leave to file a late appeal of its 2019 property assessment.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that the notice of assessment was delivered to a neighbour's house in error and was not received until months later.

The moving party filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

MPAC consented to the late appeal.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requirements of Rule 26(b) were met and granted the motion to allow the late appeal.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed his property assessment appeals as an abuse of process.

The original decision found the Requester to be an Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant who advanced vexatious arguments claiming a constitutional right to be free from taxation.

On review, the Board found no error in the original finding that the Requester was an OPCA litigant, nor did it err in refusing to hear the merits of his constitutional arguments.

The request for review was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year, requesting a change in classification from Industrial and Commercial to wholly Commercial.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion because the moving parties failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving parties did not provide clear affidavit evidence establishing that they filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a dual-use farm with a newly built, idle canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a lower value based on a sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, validated by market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.