OARB 2019

MPAC requested a review of a Board decision that granted the assessed person an extension of time to appeal her property assessments for the 2006 to 2016 taxation years due to a palpable error.

MPAC argued the Presiding Member erred in law by misapplying the test for exercising discretion under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, specifically regarding reasonableness, fairness, and prejudice.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member applied the appropriate legal framework and reasonably concluded that it would be unfair and highly prejudicial to penalize the assessed person for not meeting the statutory filing deadlines given the circumstances.

The moving party brought a motion to file late property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party was not entitled to receive a notice of assessment for 2018 because it was a tenant at the time the roll was returned and did not prove it was liable for taxes.

However, for 2019, the moving party was the owner, did not receive the notice, and filed a Request for Reconsideration within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, which the Board accepted as an appeal under Rule 26(b).

The motion was denied for 2018 and granted for 2019.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years regarding the classification of its property.

The moving party had successfully appealed its 2016 assessment, resulting in a partial residential classification, and assumed this would automatically apply to subsequent years.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party had received the notices of assessment for the years in question and failed to file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the classification, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration because the property was assessed in the commercial tax class.

The moving parties brought three motions to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years that were withdrawn in error.

The Board denied the first motion to add Alignvest as a party, finding that a party cannot be added to withdrawn appeals.

However, the Board granted the second motion brought by the correct party, CA/CS Ottawa General Partner, to reinstate the appeals.

Although the second motion was filed outside the 30-day window, the Board found that the original motion was filed on time, the error was clerical, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The third motion was dismissed as moot.

The moving party brought a motion for the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The property assessment notice had been mailed to an incorrect address.

The moving party filed the appeal slightly beyond the 30-day deadline after becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to extend the time limit, finding that the moving party acted in a timely way to ascertain its tax status and that there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The moving party requested to file late property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board scheduled a written hearing and set deadlines for submissions.

The moving party failed to file any motion material or affidavit evidence.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the motion for lack of evidence.

The moving parties sought permission to file a late appeal of their 2019 property assessment, having failed to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) by the statutory deadline.

The Board found that the moving parties did not receive the property assessment notice, which constituted extenuating circumstances under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act.

The Board granted an extension of time, allowing the moving parties 30 days to file an RfR with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $936,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed deemed appeals for 2016 and 2017 because the appellant failed to file the mandatory Requests for Reconsideration.

For the 2018 and 2019 years, the Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and found that the two most comparable properties had adjusted sale prices of $821,438 and $640,288.

Taking the median of these two properties, the Board reduced the current value assessment of the subject property to $731,000.

The moving party appealed its property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years and brought a motion for disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

MPAC consented to disclosing statements of net operating income, capitalization rates, and unredacted appendices, which the Board ordered subject to confidentiality agreements.

However, the Board denied the moving party's requests for lists of sales considered but rejected by MPAC and subsequent capitalization rate analyses, finding these requests overly broad, imprecise, and lacking established relevance or proportionality.

The requester filed a Request for Review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that granted a 50% reduction in property taxes for the 2017 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The requester sought a 100% reduction based on new financial evidence.

The Board found that the new evidence could have led to a different decision and granted the request, cancelling the previous decision and ordering a new hearing before a different Member.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 52.1-acre farm property, arguing the Class 2 farmland rate per acre applied by MPAC was too high.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's classification of 36.1 acres as Class 2 farmland but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and farm size adjustments.

The Board reduced the assessment from $610,000 (2017) and $547,000 (2018-2019) to $520,000 for all three taxation years.

The Board found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring appeals regarding the assessment of two properties operating as a hydro-electric generating station, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act.

The moving party claimed it was subjected to double taxation by paying both municipal property taxes and the Gross Revenue Charge.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged errors were not palpable.

The Board noted that the moving party had previously withdrawn appeals for the same taxation years, the errors were not plain and obvious, and the failure to pursue the appeals earlier constituted an error in judgment rather than an inadvertent mistake.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 50-acre farm property, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) applied an excessive rate per acre and incorrectly classified the land as Class 2 instead of Class 3.

The Assessment Review Board qualified MPAC's assessors as expert witnesses and accepted their evidence that the property consisted of 49.5 acres of Class 2 farmland.

After reviewing comparable sales and applying adjustments for farm size and market conditions, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $642,000, reducing the assessments from $760,000 (2017) and $701,000 (2018-2019).

The Board found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party argued the appeal deadline was missed because the tax bill was received late.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as there was no evidence the notice of assessment was not received in a timely fashion.

The moving party, Jay Patry Enterprises Inc., brought a motion seeking documentary disclosure from MPAC in a property assessment appeal.

MPAC agreed to produce some documents but argued that it was statutorily prohibited from disclosing third-party rent rolls and income/expense information without consent or a Board order.

The Board ordered the disclosure of the relevant third-party financial information, subject to the execution of a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement restricting access to the moving party's lawyers and consultants.

The Board denied the request for documents related to fair market rent adjustments that MPAC no longer relied upon, except for four properties used for corroboration.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2018 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's household income and expenses and found that she had a monthly surplus and had already paid the 2018 property taxes in full.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

At a pre-hearing conference for property assessment appeals, the respondent requested to file supplementary expert reports to provide additional explanation of previously filed reports.

The appellant and the municipality consented, provided they had an opportunity to respond.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the exchange of supplementary reports, responses, reply, and witness willsay statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family dwelling that had been under construction since 2013.

The appellant argued that because the building was incomplete and unfit for occupancy, it was not subject to assessment.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that under sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the Assessment Act, all real property, including parts of buildings, is liable to assessment unless specifically exempted.

As single-family dwellings under construction are not exempt, the partially completed building was subject to assessment for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

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

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving party failed to 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 file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.