OARB 2015

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of assessment data, statements of issues, and responses between the appellants, the assessment corporation, and the municipality.

A status conference call was scheduled to fix further steps for any unresolved properties.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for property assessment appeals involving multiple properties.

The order sets out deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, and schedules a status conference call to fix further steps for any unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order establishing an appeal management plan for multiple property assessment appeals involving the Altus Group.

The order sets deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, and schedules a status conference call to address any unresolved appeals.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The Board issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of productions and the filing of motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.

The appeals were adjourned to a subsequent telephone conference.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the appellant, Exchange Corporation Canada, to bring a motion for disclosure of financial information from MPAC regarding other airport roll numbers.

The order established deadlines for serving and filing the motion and responses, and set hearing dates for the motion in November 2015.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference to set a procedural order for the appeals, following the resolution of an issue sent back to the Ontario Municipal Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered a schedule for the exchange of statements of issues, productions, and examinations for discovery, and scheduled a further telephone conference call to review the status of the appeals.

The appellant appealed a property assessment to the Assessment Review Board.

The appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation reached an agreement and submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The City of Orillia did not respond or participate in two scheduled hearing events.

The Board ordered that the Minutes of Settlement be accepted and entered without the municipality's signature.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to establish a schedule for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, documentary discovery, and examinations for discovery in a property assessment appeal.

A pre-hearing telephone conference call was scheduled for December 4, 2015.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a property assessment appeal brought by Penady (Barrie) Ltd. against the City of Barrie and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The order establishes deadlines for the statement of issues, discovery, exchange of witness statements, and schedules a three-day hearing to commence on June 15, 2016.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to establish a schedule for the exchange of pleadings and to set a date for a subsequent pre-hearing teleconference regarding property assessment appeals by Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. across multiple municipalities.

The appellant, Mondelez Canada Inc., failed to serve a Statement of Issues in its property assessment appeals, in default of a previous Board Order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board issued an Order with Notice of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a peremptory date.

If the appellant fails to comply, the appeals will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties for a motion to compel the production of third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent MPAC consented to the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the order, permitting service on non-parties by courier or registered mail instead of personal service.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion related to compelling MPAC to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service by courier or registered mail to the non-parties' legal counsel or their address on the assessment rolls.

The appellant in a property assessment appeal submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion sought to compel the respondent to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service on non-parties by courier or registered mail.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates and production schedule for a property assessment appeal brought by the appellant against the City of Markham and MPAC.

The municipality did not serve a Statement of Response and was deemed to have elected not to participate actively.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default for failing to serve a Statement of Issues and both the appellant and MPAC in default for failing to file a draft Procedural Order.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The Board also set deadlines for responses and the filing of a draft Procedural Order, warning that failure to comply could result in restrictions on introducing evidence at the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing teleconference to determine if the appellant's 2014 and 2015 property assessment appeals were properly before the Board.

The appellant did not participate, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of her 2014 appeal at a pre-hearing without a formal motion.

The Board ordered MPAC to bring a formal motion seeking dismissal of the 2014 appeal, to be heard by the member seized of the matter prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The appellant failed to appear at a pre-hearing telephone conference and failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by a previous Board Order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, ordering the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues on the respondents by September 28, 2015.

If the appellant fails to comply, the appeal will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The Assessment Review Board held an emergency pre-hearing conference call to address a request by Exchange Corporation Canada (ECC) to vary a previous procedural order regarding production motions for airport tenant appellants.

The Board agreed to vary the order to align the dates with those provided for other appeals, setting deadlines for serving and filing motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $286,000 based on the sales comparison approach.

The appellants argued for a lower assessment, presenting three alternative valuation options.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales provided by both parties, excluding several that were not sufficiently comparable or lacked time adjustment data.

Based on the remaining comparable properties, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $276,000.

The Board also accepted MPAC's equity study, finding no adjustment was required for equity.