Francis X. Shea

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a parking garage and waterpark complex for the 2015 through 2024 taxation years.

The Board found that MPAC properly applied higher omitted assessments for the years in question.

The Board determined that the highest and best use of the property was its current use.

Applying the cost approach for the waterpark and the income approach for the parking garage, the Board concluded the correct current value of the subject property was $48,476,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the property tax assessments of 16 service units located in a mixed-use hotel and residential condominium building.

The appellant argued the units were common elements and should be assessed at a nominal value, while the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed them as 'hotel units' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the service units met the statutory definition of 'hotel units' because they were designated as units, used as part of the hotel operations to maintain mechanical systems, and a statutory declaration had been filed by the previous owner.

The Board confirmed the returned assessments based on the pro forma income capitalization approach.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for disclosure in an assessment appeal concerning a property comprising a parking garage and a waterpark.

The City sought documents relating to revenue sharing, leases, parking activity logs, parking rates, and financial statements of the corporate group.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality.

The Board granted the requests for revenue sharing details, leases (narrowed to the subject property), activity logs, and parking rates, finding them relevant to the income approach to valuation and proportionate.

The request for the corporate group's financial statements was denied as overly broad and disproportionate.

The appellant requested an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to commercial properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion arguing that issue estoppel prevented the appellant from appealing the current value assessment of its property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC argued the issues were already decided in a 2015 Board decision concerning the same property for the 2006-2012 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the first part of the issue estoppel test was not met because determining the correct current value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date is not the same question as determining the value for the 2005 and 2008 valuation dates.

The moving parties, owners of hotel properties, brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a capitalization rate study conducted by MPAC using third-party sales information.

MPAC consented to the disclosure subject to notice to third parties, no objections, and the execution of non-disclosure undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board found the requested documents relevant and proportionate to the issue of determining the current value of the properties and ordered their production subject to the required undertakings.

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Small Box Shopping Centre for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value using the time-adjusted 2009 sale price of the property rather than the income approach agreed upon by the parties during summations.

The Board also applied an equity adjustment, rejecting MPAC's use of Fair Market Rents as a proxy for equity, and instead applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.84 derived from a study of 30 commercial properties in the vicinity.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The appellants, HLS York Developments Ltd and Metro Ontario Inc., sought leave to withdraw their property assessment appeals and to strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

MPAC had discovered that the parking garage income was substantially under-assessed and sought a 25% increase in the overall assessment.

The appellants argued that MPAC was using the Board's Rules to penalize them for appealing.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that section 44(1) of the Assessment Act permits the Board to reopen the whole question of the assessment to correct errors or omissions.

The Board concluded that MPAC's request was a bona fide attempt to correct an inadvertent error regarding the parkade's income, rather than an improper change of opinion, and that there was no prejudice to the appellants in having the appeals heard on their merits.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the current value assessment of its grocery store property.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by failing to properly determine the current value, ignoring certain comparable properties, and acting without jurisdiction when it amended its initial decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the valuation issues raised were questions of fact, not law, and that the Board had jurisdiction to correct typographical and mathematical errors in its amended decision.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the current value assessment of its independent grocery store.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by restricting its comparable properties to only the 'most similar' independent grocery stores, rather than considering all 'similar' grocery stores in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The court found there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, as limiting comparables to near equivalency could constitute a methodological error of law rather than a mere factual finding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The applicant taxpayer sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

In 2002, the Board made a typographical error in an order, dropping a zero from the property's assessed value.

Six years later, the Board unilaterally corrected the error under its minor error rule, resulting in a retroactive tax bill of over $500,000 for the taxpayer.

The taxpayer applied for a review, arguing prejudice and delay, but the Board refused relief.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's conclusions on its jurisdiction to review the correction and its failure to properly weigh prejudice and delay.