OARB 2020

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2017-2020 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced due to the poor condition of the building and substandard drainage.

MPAC used the cost approach, applying a 58% depreciation rate to the building.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be $688,000, adjusting MPAC's valuation to account for the depreciated value of on-site water and septic services.

No equity reduction was applied.

The appellants requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been dismissed by the Assessment Review Board.

The appeals were originally dismissed because the Statements of Issues were not delivered.

However, the appellants had delivered the statements, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had attempted to withdraw its request to dismiss the appeals, but sent the email to an incorrect address.

The Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error due to this clerical mistake and ordered their reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $250,000 rather than the assessed values of $651,000 and $578,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data provided by both parties and determined that the best evidence of current value was a time-adjusted sale price of $594,000 based on comparable properties.

The Board found no quantitative evidence to support a negative adjustment for nuisances and concluded that an equity reduction was not required.

The assessment was reduced to $594,000 for 2019 and confirmed at $578,000 for 2020.

The requestor sought to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board found that the appeals had been closed in error after minutes of settlement were signed for the 2017 taxation year only.

Finding that procedural fairness required reinstatement due to several clerical errors by the Board, the request was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

A deemed appeal for the 2020 taxation year was also created.

The moving party requested the reinstatement of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appeals had been dismissed in error after the responding party mistakenly included them in a request to dismiss a different party's appeals for failing to comply with the schedule of events.

The moving party had substantially complied with the schedule by serving its statement of issues.

The responding party consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found the appeals were dismissed in error and ordered them reinstated pursuant to Rule 122 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Via Rail Canada.

MPAC argued the appeals were withdrawn in error because proper notice was not provided to all parties and that procedural fairness required reinstatement to allow MPAC to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that MPAC had received actual notice of the withdrawal before it was processed, no notice of a higher assessment had been served prior to the withdrawal, and no hearing events had commenced.

The Board concluded the appeals were not withdrawn in error and procedural fairness did not require their reinstatement.

The requesting party, 1414841 Ontario Inc., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for 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 City of Mississauga appealed the property tax classification of the subject property, seeking to change it from Commercial to Industrial for the 2016 through 2020 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of the property but disputed the classification.

The Assessment Review Board found that manufacturing and processing activities occurred on the property, satisfying the definition of the Industrial property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The assessed person argued that the appeal process was unduly delayed, causing financial prejudice, but the Board found no evidence of undue delay and noted that the assessed person had not requested an expedited hearing.

The appeal was allowed, and the property was reclassified as Industrial.

The appellant appealed the 2018 supplementary assessments and the deemed 2019 and 2020 assessments for a farm property improved with a newly built residence.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value using the direct sales comparison approach and bracketing.

The Board confirmed the supplementary assessment for the land, reduced the supplementary assessment for the incomplete residence, and set the total current value for 2019 and 2020 at $834,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying an adjournment request to retain counsel and by dismissing the appeals.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that the appellant had received adequate notice, had ample opportunity over two and a half years to seek procedural assistance or retain counsel, and failed to comply with the Schedule of Events.

The Board concluded there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced due to the poor condition of the building and substandard drainage.

MPAC used the cost approach, applying a 58% depreciation rate to the building due to its condition, and recommended a value of $717,000.

The Assessment Review Board adjusted the land value based on comparable sales and applied the 58% depreciation rate to the on-site utilities (septic and water well).

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $688,000 and found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $45,235 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the soil was Class 5 and recommended a reduced current value of $87,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a soil classification change to Class 6, as the land was being cultivated using farm equipment.

The Board reduced the assessments to $87,000 for both years and confirmed the Farm Full classification.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing that the current value should be $49,005 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, argued for a reduction to $115,000 based on Class 4 and 5 soil classifications and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to classify the soil as Class 6, as the land was actively cultivated.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales approach and reduced the assessment to $115,000 for both taxation years, while changing the soil classification to Class 4 and 5.

The appellants appealed the 2019 and 2020 property tax assessments for two farm properties, arguing that the soil should be classified as Class 6 rather than Class 5, which would lower the current value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to warrant a change to Class 6 soil, noting that portions of the land were actively cultivated.

Applying the direct sales comparison approach, the Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence and determined the current value of the properties to be $159,000 and $8,370, respectively.

The assessments were reduced accordingly for the 2020 taxation year, and the farm property classifications were confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $45,235 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent MPAC argued for a reduction to $87,000 based on a Class 5 soil classification and a direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to classify the soil as Class 6, noting the land was actively cultivated.

The Board changed the classification of 22.9 acres from Class 4 to Class 5, confirmed the rest as Class 5, and reduced the assessed value to $87,000 for both years based on comparable sales.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The appellant had intended to withdraw appeals for the 2017 taxation year but mistakenly withdrew the 2016 appeals.

Although the complete request for reinstatement was filed outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 122, the Board found the delay was partly due to the Board's own delay in notifying the appellant of a missing form.

Finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error and that no other parties would be prejudiced, the Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals.

Ryerson University requested the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that was inadvertently withdrawn by its counsel.

The request was filed 46 days after the withdrawal, outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the delay was caused by the parties awaiting a reassessment from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to finalize a settlement.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, noting the error was clerical and no other parties would be prejudiced.

The appeal was reinstated.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments for a 50-acre property comprising residential, managed forest, and conservation lands.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,605,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying the principle of equitable assessment, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,049,000 after comparing the property to similar nearby properties with multiple property classes.

The appellant requested an order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for a property not under appeal, to be used for capitalization rate analysis.

The owner of the third-party property initially objected but failed to file a response to the motion.

As the motion was unopposed by MPAC and the third-party owner, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered disclosure subject to MPAC's statutory terms.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a landfilling site, arguing that a landfill gas to energy facility should be excluded from the land's valuation.

The Assessment Review Board found that the facility, which generates electricity from methane gas, is an environmental control activity used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Board also determined the facility qualifies as a 'gas collection system' under O. Reg. 282/98.

Consequently, the facility was excluded from the valuation, and the property's current value was set at $1,105,000.