OARB 2019

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by the previous owner, C/O Baywood Homes, for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a statement of issues by the required deadline and did not respond to MPAC's requests or appear on the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in clear and egregious breach of the Rules, which prejudiced MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to determine whether an unlicensed representative, specifically an MPAC property assessor, could act as both an advocate and a witness in a summary proceeding before the Assessment Review Board.

The respondents objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals were permitted to perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.

The Board found that its Rules, the Law Society Act, and By-Law 4 do not expressly prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both a representative and a witness.

The Board concluded that an unlicensed representative may perform the dual role, declining to follow a previous Board decision to the contrary.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2017 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant demonstrated extreme poverty, with monthly expenses significantly exceeding her income.

However, because the applicant contributed $1,593.25 to an RRSP during the taxation year, the Board determined those funds were available to pay taxes.

The Board ordered a partial refund of $702.67, representing the total taxes levied minus the RRSP contribution.

The self-represented requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their lakefront property.

They alleged numerous factual and legal errors, including the Board's treatment of a storage container as an outbuilding, the characterization of the property as unique and recreational, the valuation of the garage as potential living space, and the failure to consider relative increases in assessed values.

They also alleged a breach of procedural fairness because the Member did not accept their late-filed evidence.

The Associate-Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that most of the alleged errors were disagreements with the Member's weighing of evidence rather than significant errors of fact or law.

While the Member erred in not providing reasons for rejecting the relative assessment increase argument, this error would not have changed the outcome as such comparisons are not valid in assessment appeals.

The procedural fairness claim was also dismissed as the Member's conduct was reasonable.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their single-family home, arguing the assessed value of $852,000 was too high due to the property abutting a railway.

MPAC recommended a reduced current value of $805,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's primary comparable property but utilized the time-adjusted sales of two other comparable properties to determine a current value of $926,000.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on a 0.905 level of assessment for similar properties in the vicinity, ultimately reducing the assessed value to $838,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing the returned value of $1,618,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,751,000 based on comparable sales.

After applying an adjustment for equitable assessment, the value was reduced to $1,683,000.

However, because neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality provided notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessment of $1,618,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The parties agreed on a current value of $317,000, leaving the property's classification as the sole issue.

The appellants argued the property should be classified as commercial, citing its historical use as a hydro-generating station.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was no longer operating as a hydro-generating station and its current use was residential.

The Board ordered the property classified as residential and reduced the assessed value to the agreed amount of $317,000.

The applicant sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant established sickness, she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her taxes.

The Board noted the applicant had significant equity in her mortgage-free home, cash savings, discretionary expenses, and had not explored reasonable opportunities to mitigate financial stress, such as renting out a room.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $546,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $520,000 and $530,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $543,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity did not warrant an adjustment.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family home in Toronto, arguing the current value of $2,988,000 was too high.

MPAC sought to increase the value to $3,604,360 based on sales ratio trend analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's proposed value excessive and determined the current value to be $3,200,000 based on the median per-square-foot value of comparable sales.

Applying an agreed-upon equitable reduction of 9.6% under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessed value to $2,892,800 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have his 2017 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant lived a modest lifestyle and had mental health challenges, he possessed significant RRSP assets that exceeded his liabilities.

Consequently, the Board determined the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The moving party, 1141557 Ontario Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking an order compelling MPAC to disclose 11 categories of documents and an order extending the time to serve its Statement of Issues.

The Board denied the disclosure request, finding that the requested documents were overly broad, not proven to be relevant to any specific issue in dispute, and not proportional at the initial disclosure stage.

However, the Board granted the extension of time, finding that the Board's own delay in scheduling the motion constituted exceptional circumstances and that the balance of prejudice favoured extending the timeline for all parties.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2017 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant was sick, it found that she had the financial ability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted her equity in the property, her receipt of a second mortgage, and her discretionary expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant argued the Board erred in finding he had the ability to pay his 2015 property taxes and had alternative revenue sources, and that the Board misstated the legal test.

He also sought to introduce new evidence regarding discretionary expenses.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the result, and concluding that the new evidence would not have altered the finding that the applicant had sufficient equity in his home to pay the taxes.

The applicant applied for a reduction of her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant, a 65-year-old widow, demonstrated an inability to pay her property taxes due to limited income and injuries sustained in two accidents.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant met the statutory test for relief and granted a 50% reduction of her 2017 property taxes, while noting that such relief is intended as a short-term remedy.

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to multi-residential, resulting in a substantial tax increase.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment and failed to demonstrate that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 17.46-acre island in the Ottawa River for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $184,000, later reducing it to $93,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $3,650 because the property is landlocked, lacks waterfront ownership (the shoreline is owned by Ontario Power Generation), and is virtually inaccessible.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was the 1995 purchase price of the property, as landlocked properties incapable of development generally do not increase in value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $9,700 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC and a late appeal with the Assessment Review Board for the 2018 taxation year.

The owner missed the statutory deadlines because he misplaced the notice of assessment.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that misplacing the notice did not constitute extenuating circumstances to extend the reconsideration deadline.

Furthermore, the Board could not accept a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the owner acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment.

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

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $295,000, based on its 2014 arm's length purchase price.

The Board further found that the property was assessed inequitably compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

Relying on the appellants' equity analysis of neighbourhood comparables, the Board granted an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $267,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Mississauga for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $1,128,000, which was recalculated to $1,044,000 during reconsideration.

The appellants argued the value should be $750,000 due to inequitable assessment compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,093,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 0.942 to achieve equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,030,000.