John O’Kane

The City of Windsor brought a motion to dismiss the property tax appeals of 2198806 Ontario Inc., arguing that the Appellant breached the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure by raising new issues and altering the proposed amount of tax refunds in its legal submissions.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant's actions did not constitute a willful flouting of the Rules and that the City failed to demonstrate any prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

The Board adjourned the hearing to allow the City to respond to the Appellant's legal submissions.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision regarding vacant unit tax rebates for an industrial complex for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

Following an interim decision, the parties submitted agreed-upon calculations for the rebates.

The Board corrected minor clerical errors in the interim decision and ordered the municipality to pay the agreed rebate amounts for 2015 and 2016, while dismissing the appeal for 2017.

The City of Mississauga requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that granted a property tax refund to the owner of a mixed-use building substantially damaged by fire.

The City argued the Hearing Member erred in law and fact by misapprehending the assessed value, ignoring statutory formulas for calculating refunds, and relying on the actual cost of repairs rather than an automated cost estimate.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the Municipal Act does not prescribe a specific method for determining the reduction in property value under s. 357(1)(d), and that the Hearing Member's reliance on the actual cost of repairs was a reasonable application of the cost-to-cure approach supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Mississauga regarding a partial refund of property taxes for the 2016 tax year under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The subject property, a mixed-use building, was substantially damaged by fire and rendered totally unusable for the entire 2016 calendar year.

The City had refunded $552.10 based on MPAC's revised assessment.

The appellant argued the refund should be based on the cost to cure the damage, claiming over $500,000 in losses.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the cost approach was relevant, the appellant only proved $256,000 in damages.

The Board reduced the pre-fire assessed value by $256,000, recalculated the taxes owed, and ordered the City to issue an additional refund of $4,189.51.

The moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of an appeal regarding a tax refund under subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the interpretation of statutory time limits is a question of statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board found that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to extend the 35-day deadline, as it had not done so expressly in the legislation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked the authority to extend the timeline and dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.

The County of Wellington and the Township of Puslinch brought a motion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act to extend the time for bringing appeals for four properties, arguing they were improperly classified as farm or residential when they were used for aggregate extraction.

The Assessment Review Board found that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll, as the errors were inadvertent and mischaracterized the fundamental use of the properties.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for appeals, finding that the municipalities had the necessary information to appeal in a timely manner but failed to do so, and that altering the historical tax liability would be highly prejudicial to the taxpayers.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing its commercial property was damaged by demolition during its conversion from a movie theatre to a fitness facility.

The City denied the application, arguing the work was a repair or renovation and that the appellant was already receiving a vacant unit rebate under s. 364.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding no statutory impediment to contemporaneous relief under both sections.

The Board concluded the property was damaged by partial demolition, rendering it substantially unusable for its previous purpose, and ordered a tax refund of $49,744.17.

The appellant property owner appealed the commercial vacant classification of its 31.45-acre parcel located within the urban boundary of Fort Erie.

The owner argued the lands should be classified and valued as 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act, as a local farmer had been cultivating the land since 2006.

The municipality and MPAC opposed, arguing the farming was an illegal non-conforming use and the property did not constitute 'farm lands'.

The Assessment Review Board held that the lands qualified as farm lands for the 2007-2012 taxation years, finding that actual farming use is the primary determinant for assessment purposes, regardless of zoning legality or future development potential.