10 total
Property assessments for mining properties revised based on parties' joint submission.
The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.
The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.
The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.
City's appeal of mining property assessments dismissed; MPAC's current value assessments accepted using Cost Approach.
The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.
The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.
The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.
The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.
Appeal for equitable reduction of property assessment dismissed due to insufficient evidence of inequity.
The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a newly constructed office complex in Toronto, arguing that the partial assessment of the property at 80% of its full value was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.
The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient convincing evidence that the comparison properties were at the same stage of development as the subject property on the valuation date.
The Board also rejected the appellants' expert's reliance on only a portion of the assessed values of mixed-use comparison properties.
The appeal for an equitable reduction was dismissed.
Motion to exclude expert evidence denied; late filing of acknowledgment did not warrant exclusion.
The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.
The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.
The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.
Motion to require non-disclosure agreements as a condition of pre-hearing disclosure denied.
The appellants in a property assessment appeal brought a motion under Rule 99 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure to clarify a prior disclosure decision.
They requested an order declaring the previously ordered disclosure confidential under Rule 89 and requiring the respondents to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before receiving the documents.
The Board denied the motion, finding no misstatement or ambiguity in the prior decision.
The Board also held that the request for a confidentiality order was premature and that existing protections, including section 53 of the Assessment Act and the implied undertaking rule, were sufficient to protect the appellants' commercially sensitive information without the need for NDAs.
The appellants brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board clarify a previous disclosure order pursuant to Rule 99, declare the ordered disclosure confidential under Rule 89, and require the respondents to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) prior to receiving the documents.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding no ambiguity in the previous decision that required clarification.
The request for a confidentiality order was deemed premature as no documents had yet been filed with the Board.
Finally, the Board declined to make disclosure conditional on NDAs, noting that existing protections under section 53 of the Assessment Act and the implied undertaking rule were sufficient to address the appellants' concerns regarding commercial sensitivity.
Motion for disclosure of construction costs and valuation methodology denied for lack of exceptional circumstances and proportionality.
The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.
The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.
The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.
While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.
Board applies Assessment to Sale Ratio method to reduce property assessment to $8,500,000 for equity.
The City of Ottawa and the previous owner appealed the property assessments for two vacant lots in downtown Ottawa for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.
The parties agreed on the current value of the properties but disputed the equitable adjustment required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.
The Assessment Review Board rejected the Assessment to Market Ratio (AMR) method proposed by the current owner, preferring the Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) method used by MPAC and the City.
After filtering the comparable sales to those within the shoulder years of the valuation date, the Board determined a median ASR of 0.830.
This resulted in a reduced equitable current value of $8,500,000 for the subject property.
Appeal of overdue tax bill dismissed; no statutory time limits for processing phase-in assessment values.
The appellant appealed an overdue tax bill of $225,535.43 resulting from the City's late processing of phase-in assessment values for the 2009 to 2017 taxation years.
The appellant argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City failed to comply with implied statutory time limits under the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and that the late processing constituted an error.
The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding no expressed or implied legislative time frames for MPAC to provide the phase-in values or for the City to process them, and concluded there was no error or prejudice to the appellant.
Board varies previous decision, finding no jurisdiction over taxation years where no appeal was filed.
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.
