Karey Lunau

MPAC brought a motion for disclosure of rent rolls, operating statements, and other financial information from the appellant in a property assessment appeal concerning a premium outlet mall.

The appellant agreed to disclose information for 2015-2017 on the condition that MPAC execute a non-disclosure agreement, but opposed disclosure for 2018 and 2019.

The Assessment Review Board held that a non-disclosure agreement was not required, as existing statutory and common law protections were adequate.

The Board also granted MPAC's disclosure requests for 2018 and 2019, finding the information relevant to valuing new additions to the property and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the property owner and MPAC in an assessment appeal concerning a casino property.

The Owner opposed the motion, arguing it was out of time and seeking dismissal of the appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely and declined to address the Owner's dismissal request on a disclosure motion.

Applying the test of relevance and proportionality, the Board ordered the Owner to disclose lease information, valuation analyses for the 2016 base year, and construction costs for the five years preceding the valuation date.

The Board declined to order MPAC to disclose certain documents protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act because the City had not provided the requisite statutory notice to affected third parties.

The appellant appealed the effective date of a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

The appellant argued the effective date should be July 3, 2017, when the facility went 'live' and began shipping inventory.

The respondent MPAC argued the effective date should be no later than February 1, 2017, when the municipality certified the building as suitable for occupancy.

The Board found that under s. 34(1)(a) of the Assessment Act, the test is when the building 'commences to be used for any purpose', not when it is fully operational or used for its ultimate intended purpose.

The Board concluded the building was used for any purpose by February 1, 2017, and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for disclosure in its property assessment appeals regarding three Loblaw Big Box grocery stores.

The City requested various documents including leases, sale agreements, appraisals, building plans, construction costs, and store sales data to support its valuation experts' analyses using the income, direct sales comparison, and cost approaches.

The property owners opposed most requests, arguing the documents were irrelevant, not probative, or highly confidential.

The Assessment Review Board granted the majority of the City's requests, finding the documents relevant to the issues in dispute and their disclosure proportionate, while noting that relevance for disclosure purposes does not determine ultimate admissibility or weight at the hearing.

The City of Brampton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals because the appellant failed to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appeals were designated as 'Legacy Appeals', which are subject to accelerated timelines and an expedited dismissal process for non-compliance.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to comply with the deadline and that its explanation of inadvertence and misunderstanding was unsatisfactory.

Weighing the prejudice to both parties and the need to strictly enforce the Rules for Legacy Appeals, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals after the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) filed a Statement of Response seeking a higher assessment based on the property's development potential.

The appellant argued that MPAC's Statement of Response lacked particularity and failed to comply with Rule 38(7), and that the appellant would be prejudiced if not allowed to withdraw.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC's pleading provided a clear evidentiary pathway and complied with the rules.

The Board also held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, as MPAC is entitled under the Assessment Act to seek a higher assessment during an appeal.

The appellant appealed a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue requesting the Board to dispense with the appellant's witness statement and exclude the witness from testifying because the appellant failed to file the statement by the deadline set out in the schedule of events.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify extending the timeline under Rule 82.

The Board granted the respondent's request, excluded the witness, and ordered the main hearing to be rescheduled.

The appellant property owner sought to withdraw its assessment appeals.

MPAC objected and brought a motion to reinstate the appeals, arguing that it had given notice of its intention to request a higher assessment in its Statement of Response, which under Rule 72 precludes withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's Statement of Response constituted valid notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Board granted MPAC's motion and reinstated the appeals, noting the appellant could still bring a formal motion for permission to withdraw.

IKEA brought a motion to dismiss the City of Toronto's property assessment appeals, arguing that the City's expert report improperly relied on confidential information from other proceedings, amounting to an abuse of process.

Alternatively, IKEA sought to postpone the appeals or obtain documentary disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expert's initial inclusion of the contested references was a mere oversight that had been corrected, which did not meet the threshold for abuse of process.

The Board also declined to postpone the appeals or order disclosure, but granted IKEA an extension of time to serve its responding expert report.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed the reclassification of its property from the residential to the multi-residential property tax class.

The appellant argued the property should remain in the residential class because the units were not self-contained and the property was used on a seasonal basis.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not used on a seasonal basis as it was open year-round.

Applying a prior Board decision, the Board determined that the physical layout of the suites, which included shared kitchens and bathrooms, met the definition of self-contained units.

The Board also held that equity does not apply to property classification.

The appeal was dismissed and the multi-residential classification was upheld.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

The moving parties requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that classified their property in the multi-residential property class for the 2011 to 2016 taxation years.

They argued that no appeal had been filed for the 2013 taxation year, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the classification for 2013 to 2016.

The Board found that the City of Oshawa did not file an appeal for the 2013 taxation year, and the deeming provisions of the Assessment Act did not apply because 2012 and 2013 had different valuation days.

The Board rejected the City's arguments based on equity and palpable error, concluding it had no jurisdiction to cure a failure to appeal.

The previous decision was varied to remove the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years that were not properly filed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for failing to serve a statement of issues by the specified date.

The appellant did not respond to the motion or appear.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to provide a statement of issues was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

The applicants brought a motion for a declaration that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding the lot size of their property for the taxation years 2003 to 2013, and sought an extension of time to bring late appeals under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the lot size as 7,405.2 sq. ft. larger than its actual size due to a 1963 calculation error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the error was not 'palpable' because it was not plain and obvious, having gone unnoticed by the owners and MPAC for decades.

Consequently, the statutory precondition for exercising discretion to allow late appeals was not met.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to outstanding assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, based on a previous Board decision regarding the 2013 taxation year.

The previous decision found that the subject property did not qualify as farm lands used only for farm purposes and changed its classification to vacant land/commercial, increasing its assessment.

The Board applied the discretionary factors from Danyluk and found no material change in circumstances or compelling reasons to re-open the issues.

The motion was granted, issue estoppel was applied, and the previous findings on current value and classification were applied to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals.

The requester sought to reinstate a 2014 property assessment appeal that was withdrawn due to a mutual misapprehension between the parties.

The requester had settled with MPAC for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years but was unaware the 2014 assessment had also increased.

MPAC consented to the reinstatement and provided executed Minutes of Settlement for 2014.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the withdrawal was a bona fide error and refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

The appeal was reinstated and processed in accordance with the settlement.

MPAC brought a motion to dispense with service on the assessed person, create new appeals for taxation years 1999 through 2016 due to a palpable error, and reduce the assessment to $0.

The roll number was assigned to a vacant parcel that was later developed into a condominium, but the original roll number was not deleted, resulting in double taxation.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the double assessment constituted a palpable error and that dispensing with service was appropriate given MPAC's unsuccessful efforts and the lack of prejudice to the assessed person.

The owners of a multi-residential building brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from MPAC relating to a residential complex.

MPAC did not object but required an order from the Board.

The Board found the complex to be near and reasonably comparable to the subject property and ordered full disclosure of income, expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and information relied upon in determining the Gross Income Multiplier, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a 59-unit multi-residential apartment building in Hamilton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $5,287,000 using the Gross Income Multiplier method.

The appellant argued for a value of $4,200,000 based on fair market rent data from CMHC.

The Board preferred MPAC's methodology and comparable properties, noting the subject property was newly built in 2012.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $5,287,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.