Lindsay Hinch

The City of Ottawa appealed the property assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement.

The Board issued decisions based on the settlement.

The owner later requested a review, claiming it never received notice of the appeal.

The Board initiated a review but found that the owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own administrative mismanagement.

The Board confirmed its previous decisions, holding that the owner was deemed not to oppose the settlement under Rule 39.

The Board also allowed the owner's late-filed 2020 appeal due to the COVID-19 suspension of limitation periods.

The City of Ottawa appealed the assessment of a property owned by 10198447 Canada Inc. The Owner failed to file a Statement of Response, and the City and MPAC subsequently reached a settlement, which the Board issued as decisions for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The Owner sought to set aside the decisions, claiming it did not receive notice of the appeals.

The Board initiated a review of the decisions.

The Board found that the Owner had received notice and that its failure to respond was due to its own carelessness.

The Board held that the deeming provision in Rule 39 (deemed consent to settlement if no response is filed) is absolute and within the Board's jurisdiction to impose.

The Board confirmed the decisions but allowed the Owner's late-filed 2020 appeal to proceed because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Assessment Review Board that denied its request to withdraw its property tax appeals.

After the applicant appealed its 2017 and 2018 assessments, it sold the property for significantly more than the assessed value.

The respondents subsequently gave notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision that the applicant could not withdraw its appeal as of right once notice of a higher assessment was provided.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Ottawa requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed values of two new properties at zero.

The Board had relied on the Tervita Corp decision due to inadequate evidence of current value.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot assign a value it knows is not current, the Board found it erred in setting the assessments at zero.

The request for review was allowed, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellants purchased an abandoned radar tower property (Parcel 3) abutting their residential property (Parcel 2).

They applied for a cancellation or reduction of 2017 property taxes, arguing that the properties merged in title under the Planning Act, constituting a 'change event' to residential use under s. 357(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, or alternatively, that they were overcharged due to a gross and manifest error under s. 357(1)(f).

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that while the assessment parcel description was erroneous because the parcel could no longer be legally conveyed, this was an error in assessment judgment, not a clerical error.

Furthermore, the alleged change event occurred in 2016, making it ineligible for relief for the 2017 taxation year.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring appeals regarding the assessment of two properties operating as a hydro-electric generating station, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.

The moving party claimed it was subjected to double taxation by paying both municipal property taxes and the Gross Revenue Charge.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged errors were not palpable.

The Board noted that the moving party had previously withdrawn appeals for the same taxation years, the errors were not plain and obvious, and the failure to pursue the appeals earlier constituted an error in judgment rather than an inadvertent mistake.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents opposed the withdrawal, having given notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change to the property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to seek a higher assessment and that the Board has jurisdiction to refuse a withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The Board also held that a higher assessment can be sought on an annual assessment appeal without a physical or legal change.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Ottawa, opposed the withdrawal because they intended to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment within their statement of issues, and that such notice can be issued on an annual assessment without a physical or legal change.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse the withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by 1649050 Ontario Ltd. regarding a vacant unit rebate application for the 2016 taxation year.

The City argued the application was filed after the statutory deadline of February 28, 2017.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory filing deadline.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.