Carl Davis

The moving parties, Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and MPAC, brought a motion to extend the time to file a request for review and to reinstate appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a settlement conference.

The parties had failed to attend the settlement conference due to a mistaken belief that it had been cancelled, and had already executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Assessment Review Board found that fairness weighed in favour of granting the reinstatement, noting the lack of prejudice and the fact that all parties supported the motion.

The Board extended the time and reinstated the appeals to allow the executed Minutes of Settlement to be processed.

The appellant requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that had been previously withdrawn.

The appellant withdrew the appeal before receiving notice of a supplemental assessment that changed the property classification.

The Board found that the appeal was withdrawn in error due to the unknown impending supplemental assessment.

Given the consent of all parties and the lack of prejudice, the Board granted the extension of time and reinstated the appeal.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a hearing set due to their failure to comply with document filing deadlines under the Assessment Review Board's new process.

The Board found that exceptional circumstances existed to permit late filing of documents, as these were the first appeals to proceed through the new process and involved multiple appellants and outside experts.

Applying the factors under Rule 84, the Board granted the adjournment, setting new dates for a settlement meeting, expert report exchange, and document filing.

The appellant and MPAC requested admission to the Board's Special Property Program to dispense with the requirement to file expert reports, and sought an extension of time to meet their disclosure obligations after missing the deadlines in the Schedule of Events.

The Board denied both requests.

The property did not meet the complexity requirements for the Special Property Program, and the parties failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify altering the Schedule of Events under Rule 82.

The appellant and MPAC requested admission to the Board's Special Property Program to dispense with the requirement to file expert reports, and sought an extension of time to meet their disclosure obligations.

The Board denied both requests.

The Board found that the property did not meet the complexity or special value considerations required for the Special Property Program.

Furthermore, the parties failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify altering the Schedule of Events under Rule 82.

The moving parties appealed the assessment of a shopping development and failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

They brought a motion to extend the time to serve their Statement of Issues, citing ongoing discussions with MPAC and the pending issuance of supplementary assessments as reasons for the delay.

MPAC consented to the extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the confluence of substantial property changes, pending supplementary assessments, and communication errors constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

Finding no prejudice to any party, the Board granted the extension and set a new commencement date.

The appellant requested a review of a Board decision regarding the 2014 assessment of its shopping mall.

The appellant had previously reached a settlement with MPAC through a request for reconsideration for the 2014 taxation year.

However, a deemed appeal for 2014 was also created by operation of law.

The Board had subsequently issued a decision for 2014 based on a settlement for other taxation years, which the municipality had not agreed to for 2014.

The Board found that its 2014 decision was made in error and cancelled it.

The Board then determined that it had no statutory authority to set aside the 2014 request for reconsideration settlement, nor did the settlement constitute a palpable error.

Consequently, the Board resolved the reinstated 2014 appeal on the same terms as the request for reconsideration settlement.

The moving party, Home Depot Holdings Inc., requested a common commencement date of April 15, 2018, for 84 property tax appeals across various municipalities.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request in part, allowing the common commencement date for appeals where the statutory parties consented or took no position, and where the properties were not located in shopping centres.

The Board denied the request for appeals where municipalities opposed the change and for properties located in shopping centres, maintaining its policy of scheduling tenant and owner appeals in shopping centres together.

The appellant requested a review of a Board disposition that set the Commencement Day for a number of assessment appeals.

The Board considered whether the disposition was a 'final decision' subject to review under Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that the disposition was an interlocutory scheduling order, not a final decision on the merits, and therefore could not be reviewed under Rule 120.

The request for review was dismissed.

The appellant requested a review of a Board disposition that set the Commencement Day for a number of assessment appeals.

The Board considered whether a scheduling disposition qualifies as a 'final decision' under Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that procedural rulings and scheduling orders do not finally dispose of the merits of a case and are therefore not subject to review under Rule 120.

The request for review was dismissed.

Canadian Tire requested to combine 155 property assessment appeals and assign them a common commencement date.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request to combine the appeals, finding that the alleged common issues—the application of a private Memorandum of Understanding and development charges—were outside the Board's jurisdiction, meaning the requirements of Rule 78 were not met.

However, the Board granted the request to assign a common commencement date of March 30, 2018, but only for those appeals where all parties, including the respective municipalities, consented.

The moving party, 100 Wynford Portfolio Inc., brought a motion to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to produce third-party income, expense, and assessment information for comparable properties in relation to its property assessment appeals.

The moving party argued the information was relevant to determining fair market rents and area calculations for its commercial office building.

MPAC and the third-party property owners consented to the production subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party had complied with notice requirements, and ordered MPAC to produce the requested documents to the moving party's counsel and consultants upon execution of the undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board issued a procedural order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality to serve their Statements of Response by January 29, 2016.

The matter was adjourned to a further in-person pre-hearing scheduled for February 29, 2016, to schedule outstanding appeals to mediation or a full hearing.

Canadian Tire Corporation brought a motion to disqualify Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc., MTE Paralegal Professional Corporation, and their expert consultant from acting for various municipalities in assessment appeals.

The expert had previously worked for Canadian Tire's consultant on the same appeals and had access to confidential information and strategy.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to disqualify representatives to prevent abuse of process.

Applying the MacDonald Estate and Stewart tests, the Board concluded the expert received confidential information, the presumption that this information was imparted to the new firm was not rebutted, and the risk of prejudice required their removal from the record.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals involving the City of Toronto and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The order sets deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, and schedules a status conference call to address any unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals involving the City of Mississauga and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The order sets deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues, responses, and replies, and schedules a status conference call for unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals.

The order sets deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, and schedules a status conference call for February 2017 to address any unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals in the City of Ottawa for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The order sets out deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, and schedules a status conference call to address any unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals.

The order sets out deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses between the appellants and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, and schedules a status conference call for unresolved appeals.