Don Mitchell

The requesting party, Cadillac Fairview, brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.

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

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation and classification of a 35-acre property.

The original Hearing Panel found that the entire property, including a residence and non-farmable land, qualified as farm lands under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act and classified it in the Farm Property Class.

On review, the Board found that the Hearing Panel erred in law by misinterpreting s. 19(5), as the residence and non-farmable land were not used solely for farm purposes.

The Board also found that the Hearing Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the property's classification, which must be referred to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal if disputed.

The Board varied the decision to apportion the property's value correctly and directed the parties to advise if classification remained in issue.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision and interim decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving parties' factum.

Consistent with the court's usual practice, no reasons were provided for the leave decision.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their six-unit motel, which MPAC assessed at $229,000.

The appellants argued the value was lower due to stigma and unrest related to adjacent First Nations lands.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was the property's 2012 sale price of $224,000.

The Board further reduced the assessment to $205,000 to ensure equity with similar commercial properties in the vicinity, applying the median per-square-foot value of comparable properties to the commercial component.

The appellants appealed the current value assessments of two waterfront properties in Ipperwash Beach for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

They argued the assessments were too high due to the impact of a nearby First Nations land claim dispute, which resulted in increased public use of the beach in front of their properties, as well as proximity to commercial properties.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to quantify the impact of the land dispute on the properties' values.

However, relying on MPAC's sales analysis and applying an equitable assessment reduction based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties, the Board reduced the assessment of 6542 West Parkway Drive from $607,000 to $527,000, and 6538 West Parkway Drive from $471,000 to $447,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront home in Ipperwash Beach, arguing the value should be reduced by at least 10% due to stigma and unrest stemming from local First Nations land disputes and changes to beach access barriers.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants provided no documentary evidence to quantify the impact of these events on property values.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation study, confirming the current value at $519,000.

However, applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.95 from MPAC's own comparable sales data, the Board reduced the assessment to $493,000 to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity.

The requester sought a review of a Board decision that dismissed its appeals regarding property tax assessments.

The requester argued that the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether a portion of its property was exempt from taxation.

The Board denied the request for review, confirming that questions of exemption from taxation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court, not the Assessment Review Board.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for review of a Member's decision regarding the assessment of a property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Board found that the Member erred in his equity analysis by applying a 15% reduction to the returned assessment rather than the current value indicated by the evidence.

The Board also found that the Member erred in automatically applying the 2013 decision to the 2014 deemed appeal, given a significant change in the returned assessment.

The motion was granted, the decision was set aside, and a new hearing was ordered for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant in a property assessment appeal submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion sought to compel the respondent to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service on non-parties by courier or registered mail.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing teleconference to determine if the appellant's 2014 and 2015 property assessment appeals were properly before the Board.

The appellant did not participate, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of her 2014 appeal at a pre-hearing without a formal motion.

The Board ordered MPAC to bring a formal motion seeking dismissal of the 2014 appeal, to be heard by the member seized of the matter prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

Block 9A Developments Ltd. brought a motion to dismiss the reinstatement of the City of Toronto's 2012 property assessment appeal, arguing detrimental reliance on the City's prior withdrawal.

The Assessment Review Board treated the motion as a request to review the Registrar's administrative decision to reinstate the appeal.

The Board found the motion was filed out of time without a good reason for an extension.

Furthermore, on the merits, the Board held that the moving party was not prejudiced by the reinstatement, as it had prior knowledge of the City's intent and had actually obtained a tax benefit.

The motion was dismissed.