Donald Gregory Mitchell

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 duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a known non-current value when MPAC fails to meet its burden of proof, MPAC argued the Board made a significant error of law.

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

The request for review was allowed, the prior 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.

Relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, MPAC argued the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in law by not determining the 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 a previous Board decision that set the property 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, the Board found it had erred in law.

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

In a property assessment appeal concerning an industrial cheese production facility, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of various documents from the property owner, Kraft Heinz Canada ULC.

MPAC sought documents relating to the recent sale of the business, as well as documents supporting Kraft's claims for functional and external obsolescence.

Kraft opposed the motion, arguing the documents were either irrelevant, privileged, or that the requests were disproportionate.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion for disclosure, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the issues in dispute and that their production was proportionate to the complexity and significance of the valuation issues.

The appellants appealed their property assessment, seeking to partition one hectare of their 20.43-acre property as farm land because they hosted two honey bee hives.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed the application, arguing that a minimum of 50 hives is required for a bona fide commercial bee keeping operation, and that two hives constitute a recreational or hobby farm.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the respondent, finding that the land was not being used only for farm purposes and did not meet the regulatory threshold for a farm land classification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a residential property.

The Board had found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the property's current value and, as a result, fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value rather than determining the current value.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's approach was contrary to the Assessment Act, which strictly requires the Board to determine the current value of the property.

The matter was remitted back to the Board.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the property assessment at $1,227,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The requester argued the Board made errors of fact and law in determining current value using comparable properties, identifying a land value sale, and conducting its equity analysis.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the presiding members did not make any significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision, as required by Rule 121(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring appeals regarding the assessment of two properties operating as a hydro-electric generating station, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.

The moving party claimed it was subjected to double taxation by paying both municipal property taxes and the Gross Revenue Charge.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged errors were not palpable.

The Board noted that the moving party had previously withdrawn appeals for the same taxation years, the errors were not plain and obvious, and the failure to pursue the appeals earlier constituted an error in judgment rather than an inadvertent mistake.

The appellant 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 comparison was the specific homogeneous neighbourhood (E60) and that similar properties were two-storey residential homes with a quality class of 6 to 7.

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

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents opposed the withdrawal, having given notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change to the property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to seek a higher assessment and that the Board has jurisdiction to refuse a withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The Board also held that a higher assessment can be sought on an annual assessment appeal without a physical or legal change.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Ottawa, opposed the withdrawal because they intended to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment within their statement of issues, and that such notice can be issued on an annual assessment without a physical or legal change.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse the withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The appellant property owner brought a motion for disclosure of MPAC's valuation work files, draft reports, and internal correspondence relating to the assessment of her seasonal recreational property.

MPAC agreed to provide notes explaining prior year adjustments but opposed the remaining requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had already received sufficient initial disclosure and that the additional requested documents were either irrelevant or their production would not be proportional to the complexity and importance of the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued the property abutted an educational institution, warranting a negative adjustment, while the respondents argued it abutted green space.

The Assessment Review Board found the property abutted green space.

Based on sales of similar properties, the Board determined the current value was $1,599,000 and the equitable value was $1,551,000.

Because no party sought an increase to the returned assessment of $1,227,000, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,227,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was uninhabitable, gutted, and lacked municipal services.

MPAC assessed the property at $162,000, applying a 90% negative adjustment to the structure, but failed to adequately explain the valuation or provide comparable uninhabitable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

Accepting the appellant's evidence and experience, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $115,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying thirty-two natural gas gate station properties as Industrial Property Class rather than Commercial Property Class.

The Board found that adding a legally required odorant to natural gas constituted 'processing' because it changed the product's character and made it more marketable.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that a legal requirement to add an odorant to permit the gas to be legally sold renders the gas more marketable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was exempt from municipal taxes on certain railway lands under s. 315 of the Municipal Act.

The appellant argued the lands were leased to a third party for valuable consideration.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the agreements between the parties created a business relationship akin to a joint venture, not a lease, as they did not grant exclusive possession.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties sought costs of $37,577.50 following a property assessment hearing where their assessments were reduced.

They argued the hearing was unnecessary and that MPAC acted unreasonably by failing to call a specialized wind turbine expert, omitting certain comparable sales, and making an inappropriate settlement offer.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith as required by Rule 138 and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a commercial office building.

The Board had reduced the property's current value to achieve equity with similar lands in the vicinity pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court determined that the appropriate standard of review for the Board's interpretation of its home statute is reasonableness, departing from older jurisprudence that applied correctness.

The Court found the Board's methodology and interpretation were reasonable given the evidence presented, and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion requesting the Member recuse himself from deciding the property assessment appeals.

The request was based on the Member's previous decision in an unrelated matter involving a report by the same expert witness, and the Member's past affiliation as a Federal Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party.

The Board applied the test for reasonable apprehension of bias and found that a reasonable, informed person would not conclude the Member was biased.

The motion for recusal was dismissed.

The moving party requested that the Board member recuse himself from hearing property assessment appeals due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was based on the member's past position on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club Canada, an organization that supports wind turbines.

The moving party argued that the appeals involved the impact of nearby wind turbines on property values.

The Board member dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable and informed person would not conclude that his past membership or general views on renewable energy would prevent him from fairly assessing evidence regarding the impact of wind turbines on property values.