Michael Radan

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to prevent a proposed witness from acting as an expert witness in property assessment appeals, arguing the witness had acted as an advocate for the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion as premature, noting that under Rule 14(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a representative cannot act as both an advocate and a witness in a general proceeding without leave of the Board.

Since the appellant had not yet sought leave, it was unnecessary and improper to preemptively bar the witness.

The appellant brought a motion to amend the Schedule of Events to allow one month to serve an expert report.

The appellant's previous legal representative had failed to procure and file an expert report despite being paid to do so, which the appellant only discovered shortly before the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board found these constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 40.

Balancing the prejudice, the Board found the prejudice to the appellant of proceeding without expert evidence outweighed the delay prejudice to the respondent.

The motion was granted.

The appellant brought a motion to prevent MPAC from relying on late-filed expert documents and an amended Statement of Response.

MPAC conceded it would not rely on the amended Statement of Response or amended valuation report.

The sole issue was whether MPAC could rely on the late-filed acknowledgment of expert duty and CV of Jennifer Williston, and tender her as an expert witness.

The Board found that MPAC failed to provide evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify altering the Schedule of Events under Rules 40 and 48.

The motion was granted, and MPAC was not permitted to rely on Ms. Williston as an expert.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value for 2017-2020 was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself, determining a value of $5,615,000.

For the 2021 taxation year, following the severance and sale of two parcels of land, the Board reduced the assessment to $3,706,000.

The Board also determined the correct classification and apportionment among industrial, industrial excess land, and commercial classes, and found no evidence to support an equity reduction.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Via Rail Canada.

MPAC argued the appeals were withdrawn in error because proper notice was not provided to all parties and that procedural fairness required reinstatement to allow MPAC to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that MPAC had received actual notice of the withdrawal before it was processed, no notice of a higher assessment had been served prior to the withdrawal, and no hearing events had commenced.

The Board concluded the appeals were not withdrawn in error and procedural fairness did not require their reinstatement.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in September 2019, brought a motion to file a late appeal of the 2019 property assessment.

The property had been assessed at commercial rates, but the moving party claimed it was zoned agricultural.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a) or (b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving party was not entitled to the original notice of assessment, failed to prove it did not receive the notice, and did not file the late appeal application within 30 days of becoming aware of the issue.