OARB 2019

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and to amend it in an ongoing property assessment appeal.

The City argued that staff turnover and a period without an assessment analyst constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor the appeal timelines, which did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would significantly prejudice the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Mississauga regarding a partial refund of property taxes for the 2016 tax year under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The subject property, a mixed-use building, was substantially damaged by fire and rendered totally unusable for the entire 2016 calendar year.

The City had refunded $552.10 based on MPAC's revised assessment.

The appellant argued the refund should be based on the cost to cure the damage, claiming over $500,000 in losses.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the cost approach was relevant, the appellant only proved $256,000 in damages.

The Board reduced the pre-fire assessed value by $256,000, recalculated the taxes owed, and ordered the City to issue an additional refund of $4,189.51.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of its property assessment appeals after they were dismissed for failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to provide proper notice of the impending dismissal and violated the rules of natural justice.

The Board denied the request, finding that the appellant had received adequate notice through a Board-generated form served by the respondent, had failed to respond within the required timeframe, and had not demonstrated any breach of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their newly constructed home for the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued the assessed values were too high due to unfinished construction and poor well water quality.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and applied a 5% negative adjustment for the poor water quality.

The Board reduced the current value for the 2016 taxation year to $333,000, and for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years to $341,000, adjusting the supplementary and returned assessments accordingly.

The moving party, a registered charity, sought an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration regarding the commercial classification of its property for the 2019 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a Request for Reconsideration because the property was in the commercial tax class, making such a request optional rather than a prerequisite for an appeal.

Treating the application as a motion to file a late appeal, the Board denied the motion because the moving party failed to file it within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b).

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000 but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The Board rejected the increase because MPAC failed to provide the required notice under the Board's Rules.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000, arguing that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Board analyzed the assessment-to-sale ratios of 18 comparable properties and found the median ratio was 0.96, which falls within the acceptable standard range.

Therefore, the Board concluded no equitable reduction was required and confirmed the assessment at $2,974,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential dwelling in Toronto for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,164,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $949,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' evidence of comparable properties lacked detailed information and time adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's direct comparison approach and bracketing analysis as the best evidence of value.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessed value of $1,164,000 was confirmed.

The applicant sought relief from property taxes for the 2018 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

After numerous adjournments of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 applications, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing.

The applicant's representative failed to attend the peremptory hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board dismissed the 2018 application due to the applicant's non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant sought property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act due to sickness or extreme poverty.

Following the death of his wife, the applicant requested a third adjournment to gather required financial documentation.

The Assessment Review Board granted the adjournment but issued an interim procedural order detailing the specific documentation required to prove the application and warning that further adjournments would not be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

The Township appealed the 2019 property assessment, arguing that the property's industrial use was not adequately reflected in its value.

MPAC had applied omitted and supplementary assessments to recognize the industrial activity.

The Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the correctness of the current value, as it did not provide sufficient evidence on how the building values and depreciation were calculated.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $131,000 and apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $981,000, but at the hearing argued for a value of $1,057,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,012,658.

The Board then applied a 4.14% equitable reduction pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in a final assessed value of $971,000.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 property assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity warranted a higher assessment.

MPAC amended its valuation to include the Industrial property class but the Township disputed the valuation methodology, specifically the use of the Agricultural Cost Guide instead of an industrial cost guide.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value of $336,000, while recognizing the industrial use by attributing a nominal value of $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential dwelling in Kenora for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $285,000 rather than the assessed $325,000.

MPAC relied on the direct comparison approach using six comparable properties to support its valuation.

The appellant relied on a third-party appraisal, but the author did not attend the hearing and the Board found the appraisal data unreliable.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's returned value to be a reasonable reflection of current value and confirmed the assessment at $325,000.

The City of Pickering brought a motion to alter the timeline in the Schedule of Events to allow it to file a late Statement of Response in a property assessment appeal.

The City admitted it failed to understand the Rules and missed the deadline, but argued it was unfairly excluded from settlement discussions between the property owner and MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a lack of understanding of the Rules does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' required under Rule 82 to alter a timeline.

As the City failed to file its response on time, it was deemed not to oppose the settlement reached by the other parties pursuant to Rule 39.

A request for costs against the City was also denied.

The appellants appealed the 2019 property assessment of their residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $999,000.

The appellants argued the value should be their 2016 purchase price of $830,000, while MPAC argued the property's value had increased due to renovations but agreed to a value of $952,000.

The Assessment Review Board used a bracketing approach with comparable sales to determine a current value of $990,023, but reduced the assessment to $952,000 as requested by MPAC.

The Board dismissed the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding the assessment to sales ratio was within an acceptable range.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of their single-family home in Toronto, which MPAC assessed at $2,088,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $1,500,000 based on the cost approach and comparable sales west of Bathurst Street.

MPAC relied on comparable sales east of Bathurst Street to support a value of $2,087,000, but conceded a 5% equitable reduction was warranted.

The Board preferred the appellant's comparable sales, finding properties east of Bathurst Street commanded higher market values.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,906,464 and applied the 5% equitable reduction, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,811,000.

The moving party purchased a property in 2016 and sought to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) and file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The moving party had mistakenly faxed the RfR to the Assessment Review Board instead of the assessing corporation on the deadline in March 2017, and did not follow up until March 2018.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act, it only has authority to extend the time to file an RfR if the request is made during the taxation year in question.

Since the request was not made until 2019, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the extension.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential dwelling in Mississauga for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $1,371,000 to $990,000.

MPAC presented a Direct Comparison Approach analysis supporting a higher value but asked the Board to confirm the returned value.

The appellant did not submit evidence to contradict MPAC's analysis and relied on an argument that MPAC's valuation analyst provided an opinion rather than fact.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC met its burden of proof, confirmed the returned value of $1,371,000, and determined no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years for a 6.69-acre farm property.

MPAC had assessed the property at $352,000 for 2017 and $322,000 for 2018 and 2019 using the cost approach.

The appellant argued that the replacement cost new was too high, the depreciation allowed was too low, and the land classification was incorrect.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that the entire parcel (excluding water) should be assessed as Class 6 farmland and applying a 2.4% annual depreciation rate to the structures.

The Board reduced the assessment to $160,500 for all three taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal dwelling for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced due to a deeded right-of-way, included chattels, and realtor fees.

MPAC argued the current value was $390,000 based on the time-adjusted sale price of the property in 2016, but did not seek an increase from the returned assessments of $349,000 and $332,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was the 2016 sale price of $390,000, rejecting the appellants' arguments for deductions.

As MPAC did not file a notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessments.