OARB 2020

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residence in Sault Ste.

Marie for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $134,000 to $83,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sales evidence presented by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation supported the assessed value.

The Board also rejected the appellant's request for an equity reduction, finding that the assessment to sale ratio analysis demonstrated the property was equitably assessed.

The assessment of $134,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their vacant residential land for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

They argued the property should be consolidated with an adjacent parcel and assessed at a lower value.

The respondent agreed to consolidate the parcels for the 2021 taxation year and offered an alternative current value of $3,000, down from the original assessments of $9,200 and $8,500.

The Board accepted the $3,000 valuation based on the direct comparison approach and the parties' agreement that the value should not exceed $3,000.

The Board found no further equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a reduction in the current value from $295,000 to $259,000 based on inspections and data analysis.

The appellants argued for a lower value based on the property's history and proximity to a sewage lagoon.

The Board reviewed comparable sales and found that MPAC's recommended value of $259,000 was correct.

The Board also found that no equity adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the assessment to $259,000.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a reduction or cancellation of her 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board, acting under delegated authority, reviewed the family's income, which consisted primarily of disability support payments, and their necessary expenses, including the costs of caring for an adult son with severe behavioral issues.

The Board found that the applicant was unable to pay the full tax amount due to sickness and ordered the 2019 property taxes reduced from $5,272.29 to $2,326.

The Requestor sought to reinstate its property assessment appeals for the 2012 and 2016 taxation cycles, which had been dismissed for failure to serve Statements of Issues in accordance with the Schedules of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the reinstatement for the 2012 cycle appeals because the Requestor served the required Statement of Issues within the 14-day response period following the request to dismiss.

However, the Board declined to reinstate the 2016 cycle appeals, as the Requestor failed to serve the Statement of Issues within the response period and provided no explanation for the delay.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property with a commercial component in Sault Ste.

Marie for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, as well as omitted assessments for 2017 to 2019.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, finding the value to be $2,381,000.

The Board also found that the omitted assessments should be reduced to zero to avoid double counting, as the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's evidence of current value already included the areas covered by the omitted assessments.

Finally, the Board concluded that no equitable reduction of the current value was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed property assessments under the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act.

The parties requested procedural orders to alter the timelines and revert the appeals to the general stream Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board granted the revised requests on consent, extending the timelines for expert reports and scheduling a settlement conference.

The Municipal Act applications were dismissed on consent.

Wal-Mart brought a motion to file an additional expert report on fair market rent after the deadline in the Schedule of Events had passed.

The report had been prepared by MPAC for a different property.

Wal-Mart argued that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the late filing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances and noting that admitting the late report would cause significant prejudice to the other parties by requiring further expert testimony and delaying the scheduled hearing.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant's financial evidence, which showed a positive bank balance at the end of the year after all expenses including property taxes were paid, demonstrated an ability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party requested that the Assessment Review Board accept late appeals for the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The moving party argued that they intended to appeal the property taxes indefinitely following a 2016 appeal.

The Board found that no deemed appeals were created for subsequent taxation years because 2017 was the start of a new taxation cycle.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) to accept a late appeal, as there was no evidence they did not receive the notices of assessment.

The motion was denied.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny a commercial vacancy rebate for the 2018 taxation year.

The City had requested specific evidentiary documents to support the application, but the appellant failed to provide complete information within the prescribed 30-day statutory deadline.

The Assessment Review Board held that the appellant did not comply with the evidentiary requirements under section 364 of the Municipal Act and section 27 of O. Reg. 325/01.

The Board further held that it lacked the discretion to extend the statutory timeline or waive the evidentiary requirements.

The appeal was dismissed, and the vacancy rebate was determined to be zero.

The applicant applied to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's income, expenses, and assets, noting that she had approximately $665,000 in equity in her home and had successfully paid her 2019 property taxes in full while maintaining a small bank account surplus.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the taxes levied in 2019 and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the municipality to cancel, reduce, or refund property taxes for the 2019 taxation year.

The municipality delegated its authority to hear the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board scheduled a pre-hearing teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application for non-attendance.

The Board granted the motion, finding the application abandoned, and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed her application to the City of Mississauga for a reduction or cancellation of her 2016 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant alleged several errors, including failure to suspend timelines during the COVID-19 emergency, failure to consider a loan, and misapplication of the legal test.

The Board found no significant errors of law or fact, nor any violation of natural justice, and denied the request for review.

The moving party, a corporate property owner, brought a motion to file a late assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment upon receiving a tax bill.

Within 30 days of becoming aware, the moving party erroneously filed a request for reconsideration instead of a request to extend time to file an appeal.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) and that treating the request for reconsideration as an appeal was consistent with the principles of fairness and liberal interpretation of the rules.

The applicant applied to the City of Kawartha Lakes to have her 2019 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant's monthly expenses exceeded her income, which consisted primarily of disability support payments, and that she was living in extreme poverty.

The Board ordered the cancellation of $765 in outstanding 2019 taxes and a refund of $876 for taxes already paid.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals for the 2010 taxation year regarding a property in Ottawa.

The property had been severed, but MPAC relied on an incorrect legal description, resulting in the assessed person being taxed for property he did not own.

The assessed person consented to the motion, and the municipality took no position.

The Assessment Review Board found that the incorrect legal description constituted a palpable error that prejudiced the assessed person.

The Board granted the motion, extending the time for appeal and directing that MPAC be the appellant.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's monthly expenses exceeded her income and that she was unable to access the equity in her home due to her financial situation and medical condition.

The Board concluded that the applicant was unable to pay her property taxes due to sickness and ordered the cancellation of the 2019 property taxes in the amount of $4,748.31.

The City of London brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years due to their failure to comply with the Board's Schedule of Events.

The appellants had not exchanged documents by the required deadline, citing unfamiliarity with the new process and lack of time due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the appellants were responsible for taking the necessary steps to advance their appeals and had failed to do so.

The appeals were dismissed.

The respondents (MPAC and the City of Cambridge) brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the appellant Toyota's excess capital and operating cost calculations for its Cambridge plant.

Toyota opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the information would be in forthcoming expert reports, that the requests lacked specificity, and that it had already disclosed significant material.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that relevance is the primary consideration and that Toyota has an ongoing obligation to disclose relevant documents in its possession.

The Board ordered production of the requested documents, except for a third-party expert report prepared for General Motors, which requires notice to GM.