Chantelle MacMillan

The requesting party sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served to the owners of the other properties, with only one objection that was not supported by submissions.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The City of Hamilton requested an order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties.

Nine owners did not object, while two objected.

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents for the nine unopposed properties and granted the two opposing owners two weeks to provide written submissions regarding their objections.

The appellant appealed its property tax assessments, arguing that its telecommunication towers should be classified as exempt from taxation under s. 3(1)(21) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine exemption status.

The Board granted the motion, finding that property 'classification' under the Act does not include exemption status, and that the Board's statutory jurisdiction under s. 40(1) does not permit it to adjudicate disputes regarding tax exemptions.

The Board also held it has no general jurisdiction to grant equitable relief regarding exemptions.

The appeals were dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for an order extending the time to bring assessment appeals for the 2019 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that an overstatement of the property's gross leasable area by over 30% constituted a palpable error in the assessment roll.

The Assessment Review Board found that while large measurement errors can be palpable, the error in this case was not of sufficient magnitude to be conspicuous, plain, and obvious.

As there was no palpable error, the statutory precondition for extending the time to appeal was not met, and the motion was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant sought to have its telecommunications tower classified as exempt from taxation under s. 3(1) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board held that it lacks jurisdiction to determine questions of tax exemption, as s. 46 of the Act grants exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to the Superior Court.

The Board distinguished between property classification, which it can determine, and tax exemption, which it cannot.

The appeals were dismissed.

The moving party, 10 Yonge Inc., sought leave to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party argued it did not receive the notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 26(b) only applies when a party does not receive a notice of assessment, which the moving party acknowledged receiving.

The Board held it had no authority to extend the time to file an appeal in these circumstances.