OARB 2016

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for three condominium units in Brockville for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the units at $272,000, $265,000, and $272,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed recent sales of comparable properties in the vicinity and determined that the average square foot value supported a current value of $250,000 for each unit.

The Board found this value to be equitable and reduced the assessments accordingly, with the decision also applying to the deemed 2015 appeals.

MPAC brought a motion arguing that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2009-2012 taxation years, as the property's classification had been previously litigated.

The appellant opposed, arguing a change in material facts due to a 10% increase in retail sales at the bakery operation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appellant's procedural objection regarding notice and granted MPAC's motion.

The Board found that the three requirements for issue estoppel were met and that the minor change in retail business did not alter the property's industrial classification.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built home, which was assessed at $1,151,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellants argued the property was over-assessed and relied on the builder's price list and two other sales on the street.

MPAC provided comparable sales evidence supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales and price lists are not the best indicators of current value and preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,151,000 and found no evidence to warrant an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board issued a procedural order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality to serve their Statements of Response by January 29, 2016.

The matter was adjourned to a further in-person pre-hearing scheduled for February 29, 2016, to schedule outstanding appeals to mediation or a full hearing.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board approved the draft procedural order presented by the parties and directed that the matters be scheduled for a hearing event in accordance with the order.

The Board noted that the procedural order was not filed by the previously ordered deadline, but its adoption did not negate a prior Board Order.

At a pre-hearing conference for a property assessment appeal, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by a specified date, warning that failure to comply would result in MPAC being barred from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The matter was adjourned to a further pre-hearing conference to adopt a procedural order.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by January 29, 2016, and set deadlines for the municipality's response and the filing of a draft Procedural Order.

The matter was adjourned to a further telephone conference call.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential condominium unit in Toronto.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $1,481,000 but recommended a reduction to $1,393,000 at the hearing.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $1,043,000 based on their purchase price and a time adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the purchase price of $1,315,000 (including HST) and comparable sales of similar units in the building supported a current value of $1,315,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,315,000 and found no further reduction was warranted on equity grounds.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments for their waterfront cottage property for the taxation years 2011 to 2013, as well as the deemed appeals for 2014 and 2015.

MPAC had added omitted assessments after discovering a new cottage and deck had been built in 2008.

The appellants argued the assessments were too high, citing the property's location on the shallower side of the island and a damaged retaining wall.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and reduced the omitted assessment for 2011 and 2012, confirmed the 2013 omitted assessment, and reduced the total current value for all years under appeal, finding no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a single-family detached home, originally assessed at $1,866,000.

The appellant's expert appraiser provided evidence of comparable sales in close proximity to the subject property, supporting a current value of $1,300,000.

The respondent relied on comparable properties located further away and with a higher quality of construction classification.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's expert evidence, finding the current value to be $1,300,000, and reduced the assessment accordingly.

A further reduction based on equity was deemed unwarranted.

The appellants appealed the 2014 and 2015 property assessments of their residential property, which was undergoing extensive but unfinished renovations.

MPAC proposed a reduction of the 2014 assessment from $167,000 to $157,000 based on a direct sales comparison approach that accounted for the unfinished state of the property.

The appellants sought a reduction to $105,000, relying on a previous Board decision from 2008.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding the $157,000 valuation to be supported by comparable sales and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The 2014 assessment was reduced to $157,000, and the 2015 assessment was confirmed at $157,000.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments applied by MPAC to their waterfront property for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years, arguing that the dwelling under construction should not be assessed until it was fit for occupancy in 2015.

The Assessment Review Board found that under s. 33 of the Assessment Act, the partially completed dwelling constituted an improvement that added value to the property and was therefore assessable.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data and reduced the omitted assessments to $157,000 for 2012, $198,000 for 2013, and $230,000 for 2014, finding these values to be equitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the taxation years 2009-2012.

MPAC sought to increase the assessment based on changes to the property profile, including quality class, effective lot size, and a green space variable.

The Board declined to qualify MPAC's assessor as an expert witness but admitted his evidence.

The Board rejected MPAC's proposed changes to the property profile, finding them insufficiently justified, but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and the value of an enclosed pool.

The assessment was set at $2,063,000 for all years, and the Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equity.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 145 to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The Board cautioned that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to comply with a procedural order requiring notice of service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty,' recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the Board's updated rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not strictly meet the grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review the Board's decision dismissing its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board considered whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Although the Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.