Matthew Kanter

The property owner applied to correct a palpable error on the assessment rolls for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the assessed value failed to account for an unbuildable rock outcrop that reduced the effective lot size.

The Assessment Review Board found that the omission of the rock outcrop was a factual error of conspicuous magnitude, constituting a palpable error.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to correct the error.

The Board balanced the financial prejudice to the owner against the owner's decade-long delay in raising the issue and the resulting prejudice to the municipality's finalized budgets, concluding that the principle of finality outweighed the need for correction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,160.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.

The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Brampton requested a review of a Board decision that dismissed an application to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for a property from 2005 to 2016.

The original Hearing Member found that the errors were not palpable because they were not unintentional and required detailed investigation, and declined to exercise discretion due to the delay in filing an appeal.

On review, the Board found the Hearing Member made significant errors of law.

The Board held that a palpable error under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act does not need to be unintentional, and the exercise of discretion requires a balanced approach weighing prejudice, not a restrictive approach enforcing limitation periods.

Finding that the property was subject to double taxation and no party claimed prejudice from the correction, the Board varied the decision, corrected the palpable errors, and extended the time for bringing appeals.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding an increase in the assessed value of its property.

The Board had previously increased the property's value based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, without the applicant's participation, relying on a rule that deemed non-responsive parties to not oppose settlements.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board erred in disposing of the proceeding without a hearing in the absence of the consent of all statutory parties, finding a potential conflict between the Board's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that increased the assessed value of its property.

The Board had disposed of the matter based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, relying on ARB Rule 39 which deemed the non-participating applicant to have consented.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether ARB Rule 39 conflicts with s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which requires the consent of all parties to dispose of a proceeding without a hearing.

The appellant brought a motion requesting that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) be prohibited from relying on undisclosed lease, income, and expense information from comparable properties in its evidence.

MPAC argued it was prohibited from disclosing such information under s. 53(1) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had a remedy available to request a disclosure order under s. 53(5) of the Act but chose not to exercise it.

The Board held that MPAC may rely on properly undisclosed information in its evidence, and the adjudicator retains discretion to weigh the evidence.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to determine that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property and to prohibit the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

The property had been returned as exempt by MPAC.

The City attempted to challenge the exemption by appealing the property's classification.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that jurisdiction to determine tax exemption resides entirely with the Superior Court and prohibiting the City from circumventing this limitation by framing the issue as a classification dispute.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting a determination that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property, and an order prohibiting the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

MPAC had previously determined the subject property was exempt from taxation.

The City appealed, arguing the property should be classified in the multi-residential property class.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is exempt from taxation, as that jurisdiction resides with the Superior Court.

The Board also held that the City could not circumvent this limitation by challenging the property's classification, and prohibited the City from raising tax liability as an issue.

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 requestors sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value of their residential property was higher than the value returned on the assessment roll by MPAC.

The requestors argued the Board made significant errors of law, violated procedural fairness, and acted with bias, particularly because MPAC had not requested a higher assessment.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value of the land, regardless of whether MPAC requested an increase.

The Board also found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, noting the requestors had an opportunity to make submissions on the higher value.

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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the property owner to extend the time to file assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to palpable errors in the assessment roll.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the municipal address and assessed the property based on the dimensions of a different property, resulting in a significant overassessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the errors were inadvertent, obvious, and highly prejudicial to the owner.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, extending the time for the appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The Township of Warwick appealed the property assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

The central issue was whether the valuation of the landfill under section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 should include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, as the regulation mandates valuing the land as if it were vacant industrial land.

The Board set the current value of the property at $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Township of Warwick appealed the MPAC assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was whether section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 requires the valuation of the landfill as 'vacant industrial land' to include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 establishes a special valuation regime that ousts the general market value approach under section 19(1) of the Assessment Act.

Consequently, the value of the remaining landfilling capacity must be excluded.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $6,387,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.