4 total
Leave to appeal granted where Board member's discretionary decision relied on erroneous statutory interpretation and unargued facts.
The applicant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that cancelled the administrative reinstatement of the respondent taxpayer's property assessment appeal.
The Board member had exercised discretion to not relieve against MPAC's irregular service by email of a Special Notice requesting a higher assessment, effectively confirming the taxpayer's withdrawal of its appeal.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board member's reasons for exercising her discretion were based on an erroneous view of the Assessment Act and assumed facts not argued before her, raising questions of law of broad importance to the assessment system.
Procedural order setting hearing dates and discovery deadlines for property tax assessment appeals.
The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property tax assessment appeals for the 2011-2015 taxation years.
The order sets the hearing dates, discovery deadlines, and procedures for expert witnesses, written evidence, and the conduct of the hearing.
The municipality did not serve a Statement of Response and is deemed to have elected not to participate actively.
Leave to appeal property assessment denied; appellant failed to prove assessment was inequitable.
The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the assessed value of its two senior citizen apartment buildings.
The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on actual rents that included fees for non-realty services rather than fair market rents.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board made no error of law and that the appellant failed to discharge its onus under section 60(1) of the Assessment Act to prove the assessment was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.
Property tax assessment appeal allowed because the Board incorrectly applied a current value test instead of market value.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments for a shopping mall for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to use a recent arm's length sale price as the best evidence of market value, and by applying a 'current value' approach rather than a 'market value' approach.
The Divisional Court held that the Board's treatment of the recent sale was a question of mixed fact and law and thus not appealable.
However, the Court found the Board erred in law by applying a 'current value' (unencumbered fee simple) approach, which was introduced by 1997 amendments not applicable to the years in question.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination based on the correct 'market value' test.
