OARB 2018

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of an industrial property returned at $10,781,000.

At the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to dismiss for lack of disclosure, which was denied, and requested an adjournment, which was also denied.

The appellants and the municipality reached a settlement agreeing to a current value of $9,250,000.

MPAC took no position on the settlement.

The Board accepted the settlement and reduced the assessment accordingly.

MPAC brought a motion for an order to inspect the respondents' property, citing the length of time since the last inspection, quality of construction, and suspected business activity.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to provide a compelling, specific issue that an inspection would help resolve.

The Board noted that the request was not made in a timely manner and appeared to be a fishing expedition.

The applicant sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2016 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the evidence of sickness but found the applicant was not living in extreme poverty.

The Board noted the applicant's discretionary spending on vacations, golf, and toll roads, as well as his substantial home equity, which demonstrated an ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 90-year-old condominium owner, applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had sufficient net monthly income and equity in her property to pay her property taxes, and that her lifestyle and expenses did not demonstrate extreme poverty.

MPAC brought a motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act asking the Assessment Review Board to create late appeals for three roll numbers comprising a conservation area, arguing that significant errors in the recorded lot sizes constituted palpable errors.

The Board found that the massive discrepancies in the recorded acreage were plain and obvious, and therefore qualified as palpable errors.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to create the appeals, noting that s. 40.1 is an extraordinary remedy meant to cure situations where enforcing the statutory deadline would be highly prejudicial.

Since the public bodies involved had statutory remedies they failed to pursue and provided no evidence of unfairness, the motion was denied.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals because the respondent failed to comply with a Board order to provide documents by a specified date.

The respondent provided the documents late.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC suffered no prejudice from the late disclosure and that dismissal is an extreme remedy requiring clear evidence of prejudice, especially given the relaxed procedural practices under the previous rules.

The applicant applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found that she did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The evidence showed that the applicant and her daughter had sufficient assets, including equity in the property and cash savings, to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax classification of three properties with barns that had solar panels installed on their roofs.

MPAC had changed the classification from farm and vacant land to industrial and excess land industrial.

The appellant argued the change was prohibited by s. 42.3(1) or s. 42.2(1) of O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the solar panels were the dominant physical feature on the rooftops, not 'ancillary installations', and that the primary use of the properties was electricity generation, not agricultural.

The Board confirmed the assessments in the industrial property class.