Jennifer Barlow

The appellant appealed a property assessment, arguing that MPAC lacked the authority to issue a second omitted assessment under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2019 taxation year.

MPAC had initially issued an omitted assessment for the parent property, but subsequently issued another to account for the property's conversion into condominium units.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the registration of the condominium plan created new 'lands' that had been omitted from the assessment roll, thereby obligating MPAC to issue the subsequent omitted assessments to correct the roll.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of appraisals or opinions of value from the appellant, Home Depot.

The motion was brought significantly after the deadline for disclosure disputes set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify amending the Schedule of Events to permit the late motion.

Consequently, the motion for disclosure was denied, though the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the delay caused by the motion itself.

The moving parties brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking the production of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) Industrial Mall Capitalization Rate Study.

The Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested information, including redacted income and expense information for specific properties, subject to the execution of Undertakings of Non-Disclosure by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants.

The Appellants requested an order to hold a motion under Rule 57 to compel MPAC to produce documents containing confidential financial information used to revise the capitalization rate for Industrial Mall properties.

The Board ordered that the production motion be scheduled and served by registered mail to the vendors whose information is sought.

The Board also scheduled a hearing event to adjudicate representative cases dealing with the capitalization rate issue.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments for the 2009-2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, but disputed the land value.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on its lease with the City and land use restrictions, while MPAC relied on comparable sales of parkland.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the lease rate as below market and instead utilized comparable sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, adjusting for size.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $4,404,504 for the 2009-2012 taxation years and $5,409,422 for the 2013-2015 taxation years, and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property located at 2481 Yonge Street in Toronto for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The original assessment was $1,711,000, which MPAC recommended reducing to $1,515,000.

The appellant sought a further reduction to between $1.3 and $1.4 million, citing the need for repairs and lack of parking.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported the recommended value of $1,515,000 and that the appellant's comparables were either outside the ideal time period or too far away.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,515,000 for 2014 and confirmed it for 2015.