OARB 2020

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of property assessments for the 2008 and 2010 to 2018 taxation years, arguing that he recently discovered the properties lacked water access.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

For the 2010 to 2018 taxation years, the moving party failed to file Requests for Reconsideration within the prescribed time, which is a statutory precondition to appeal under the Assessment Act.

For the 2008 taxation year, the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he did not establish that he failed to receive the notice of assessment or that he filed the motion within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements for several properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As neither MPAC nor the municipality opposed the request, the Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure order on consent, subject to terms imposed by MPAC under s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant requested an order for MPAC to disclose income and expense statements for several properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requester sought a review of the Assessment Review Board's decision refusing his request to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The requester argued that a severe medical illness prevented him from reviewing the Property Assessment Notice and managing his affairs until several months after the appeal deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that because the requester had actually received the notice, the Board had no statutory jurisdiction or residual discretion under the Assessment Act or the Fleming exception to extend the absolute deadline for filing an appeal.

The Township of Johnson appealed the current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not adequately reflected.

MPAC had applied omitted assessments to add an industrial property class.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet 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 $322,000, apportioning a nominal $1,000 to the industrial class.

The requester sought to reinstate a property assessment appeal that its legal representative had withdrawn without prior client instructions.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request under Rule 122.

The Board found that while the withdrawal was an error, it was not a clerical error but rather a failure of the representative to obtain instructions.

The Board held that it must be able to rely on the representations of legal representatives, and going behind those representations would be unreasonable and problematic.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 current value assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity was not reflected in the assessment.

MPAC subsequently issued omitted assessments to add an Industrial property class and increase the value.

The Assessment Review Board found that while industrial use was occurring, MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value, as its cost approach evidence was unreliable and lacked necessary detail.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $347,000, but apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class to recognize the undisputed industrial use.

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed by the Assessment Review Board for non-compliance with Rule 69.

The parties had executed Minutes of Settlement, and MPAC had agreed to file them with the Board but failed to do so in error.

The Board found that the requester met the requirements of Rule 122(a) for reinstatement, as the request was timely, made by a party to the appeals, and the dismissal was due to an error not caused by the requester.

The appeals were reinstated and the agreed-upon Minutes of Settlement were applied.

The appellants appealed the 2019 property assessment of their residential property and reached a settlement with MPAC.

At the hearing, the appellants brought a motion seeking to apply the 2019 settlement terms retroactively to the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, despite having failed to file valid appeals for those years after their 2017 Request for Reconsideration was closed by MPAC for being incomplete.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding it had no statutory authority under the Assessment Act to create or deem appeals retrospectively for years in which no appeals were filed.

The 2019 assessment was reduced on consent.

The appellants requested an order requiring MPAC to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requester sought an order to reinstate two property tax appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The request was filed within 30 days of the withdrawal, supported by an affidavit explaining the good faith error made while attempting to withdraw other settled appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requirements of Rule 122 were met and, considering principles of fairness and lack of opposition, granted the request to reinstate the appeals.

The appellant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied an equitable reduction of her property's assessed value.

She argued the hearing member made errors of fact and law, including misapplying the similarity test for comparable properties and failing to consider her cited case law.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the hearing member correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test, based his findings on the evidence adduced, and provided sufficient analysis to support his determination.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to have his 2018 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a monthly income surplus and significant net worth assets.

The Board found that the applicant had the financial ability to pay his property taxes and dismissed the application.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and the property owner for an extension of time to appeal property assessments for the 2005 to 2016 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the roll.

The errors involved the separate assessment of a recreation centre and dog grooming business that should have been exempt as condominium common elements.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the errors were not palpable because they were known to the parties for years and required extensive investigation to uncover.

The Board also noted it would not have exercised its discretion to correct the errors due to the parties' prolonged inaction and failure to file timely appeals.

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

The moving party missed the deadline to appeal following a notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board denied 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, as the rule applies to a notice of assessment, not a notice of reconsideration, and the appeal was not filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of her residential property, arguing the current value should be reduced from $977,000 to $721,529 due to ongoing flooding, mold, and neighbour disputes.

MPAC presented sales evidence supporting a value of $1,333,000 but did not seek an increase.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's evidence of repair costs unsupported and too far removed from the valuation date.

Relying on MPAC's sales data, the Board determined the correct current value was $1,280,000.

However, because MPAC did not serve notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $977,000.

The property owner brought a motion seeking reimbursement for over-taxation from 2010 to 2016, alleging MPAC incorrectly assessed her property as having seven bathrooms instead of three.

The Assessment Review Board treated the motion as a request to file late appeals.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order tax reimbursement.

Furthermore, the Board held it could not accept late appeals because the owner had not filed mandatory Requests for Reconsideration (RfRs) for the years in question, and the statutory deadline to extend the time to file those RfRs had long passed.

The moving party, a religious organization, brought a motion seeking to file late property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The moving party had not filed Requests for Reconsideration (RfRs) with the assessing agency for those years.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that under s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act, filing an RfR is a mandatory precondition to an appeal for residential properties.

Furthermore, under s. 40(4), the Board only has authority to extend the RfR deadline if the request is made during the taxation year in question, which was not the case here.

The appellant appealed the 2018 and 2019 property tax assessments for a historically significant residential property in Carleton Place.

MPAC assessed the property at $999,000 for 2018 and $700,000 for 2019.

The Board found that the reverse onus provision under section 40(18) of the Assessment Act did not apply because MPAC failed to provide the required Special Notice.

Based on comparable sales and proven costs to cure deferred maintenance, the Board reduced the 2018 assessment to $612,000 and confirmed the 2019 assessment at $700,000.

No equitable reduction was granted.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and Board Rules.

The appellants failed to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2015 appeal, which is a statutory precondition under s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act.

The 2016 appeals, deemed from the invalid 2015 appeal, were also found non-compliant.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to file a Statement of Issues and documentary evidence as required by the Board's Schedule of Events.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.