Donald Gregory Mitchell

The Appellants, owners of car rental businesses at Pearson International Airport, brought a motion requesting an extension of time to amend their Statement of Issues for the 2021 taxation year.

They argued that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a change in the 'state and condition' of their properties, requiring an annual reassessment of current value under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Act prescribes a fixed valuation day (January 1, 2016) for the entire assessment cycle and does not permit an annual reassessment of current value based on changing market conditions or a 'state and condition' paradigm.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking disclosure from Cadillac Fairview and MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for the CF Lime Ridge Mall.

Cadillac Fairview opposed the motion, arguing the City failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City missed the deadlines for bringing the motion and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

Consequently, the Board denied the City's motion for disclosure.

The appellants, car rental companies at Pearson Airport, brought a motion to separate their 2021 property assessment appeals from their 2017-2020 appeals.

They argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and related government restrictions altered the state and condition of the properties as of the December 15, 2020 state and condition date, creating a distinct issue for the 2021 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the proceedings had not become unduly complicated, delayed, or repetitive, and that the appellants were not unduly prejudiced.

The Board also noted that any potential delay was attributable to the appellants' failure to bring the motion in a timely manner.

The appellants appealed the current value assessments of two commercial properties on Bloor Street West for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the direct income capitalization approach and agreed on most values, leaving only the fair market rent for ground-floor retail space in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board determined the fair market rent to be $305 per square foot, preferring the respondent's methodology for calculating net effective rent without discounting future rents to present value and without deducting the owner's portion of tenant improvement allowances.

The Board also rejected the appellants' argument that net effective rent should be reduced to account for unexpected property tax increases following the 2016 general reassessment.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Assessment Review Board that denied its request to withdraw its property tax appeals.

After the applicant appealed its 2017 and 2018 assessments, it sold the property for significantly more than the assessed value.

The respondents subsequently gave notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision that the applicant could not withdraw its appeal as of right once notice of a higher assessment was provided.

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 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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a non-current value when MPAC fails to meet its burden of proof, the Board found that it had erred in law in the prior decision.

The Board cancelled the previous decision and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Ottawa requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed values of two new properties at zero.

The Board had relied on the Tervita Corp decision due to inadequate evidence of current value.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot assign a value it knows is not current, the Board found it erred in setting the assessments at zero.

The request for review was allowed, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in MPAC v. Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not determining the current value and by relying on case law without allowing the parties to make submissions.

The previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value of a property and cannot default to a prior assessment it knows is not current, MPAC requested the decision be cancelled.

The property owners supported the cancellation.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the prior decision, and ordered a rehearing to determine the correct current value.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessment of a property at its last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law by failing to determine the current value, relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine current value by reverting to a previous assessment, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without seeking submissions from the parties.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine the current value of a property, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without allowing the parties to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The moving party requested a review of a previous Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current, the moving party argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was allowed, the decision cancelled, and a rehearing ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed value of the subject property at its last uncontested value.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law by failing to determine the current value of the property, relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current due to inadequate evidence.

The Board cancelled the original decision and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the prior decision should be cancelled.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in its previous approach.

The request for review was allowed, the prior decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered to determine the correct current value of the property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at its last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law and denied natural justice, relying on the recent Divisional Court decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board also found it breached natural justice by relying on case law without allowing party submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a non-current value, the Board found it erred in its previous decision.

The Board cancelled the decision and ordered a rehearing to determine the correct current value of the property.