OARB 2020

The City of Windsor brought a motion to dismiss the property tax appeals of 2198806 Ontario Inc., arguing that the Appellant breached the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure by raising new issues and altering the proposed amount of tax refunds in its legal submissions.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant's actions did not constitute a willful flouting of the Rules and that the City failed to demonstrate any prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

The Board adjourned the hearing to allow the City to respond to the Appellant's legal submissions.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2017-2020 taxation years, arguing the value should be zero due to soil contamination on a nearby property.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence that any contamination remained or affected the subject property's value.

Using the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the correct current value was $205,918, but confirmed the returned assessment of $169,000 because the respondent did not provide notice seeking a higher value.

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 other property initially objected but failed to file a response to the motion.

As the motion was unopposed by MPAC and the other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered disclosure subject to MPAC's statutory terms.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2017-2020 taxation years due to the appellant's failure to file a Statement of Issues.

The appellant had not complied with the Board's Schedule of Events and had a lack of involvement in the appeal process.

The Assessment Review Board found that the breaches of the Rules were entirely attributable to the appellant and its representatives.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the Rules.

The appellant, 743031 Ontario Limited, brought a motion requesting an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for a property not under appeal.

The owner of the other property initially objected but failed to file a response to the motion.

As the motion was unopposed by all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for a property not under appeal, pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

Notice was served on the owner of the other property, who initially did not consent but subsequently failed to file a response to the motion.

As the motion was unopposed by all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to its statutory terms.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his semi-detached building, arguing it should be classified as residential and assessed at a lower value due to zoning restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was correctly classified as commercial based on its actual use as a law office.

However, the Board agreed that the residential zoning restricted its market value.

The Board determined the current value to be $813,900, but applied an equity reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $611,000 based on the assessments of similar neighbouring properties.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion for disclosure of documents from Promenade General Partner Inc. in a property assessment appeal.

The requested documents included full commercial leases, agreements of purchase and sale, and an appraisal report.

Promenade opposed the motion, arguing that the documents contained irrelevant information, that production was disproportionate, and that confidentiality could not be ensured.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the issues in dispute and that their disclosure was proportionate and necessary for the parties to prepare their cases.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $1,652,896 and seeking a 5% equitable reduction.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) adjusted its initial assessment to $1,879,000 after correcting a factual error regarding the garage size.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis over the appellants' and found the correct current value to be $1,879,000.

The Board also declined to apply an equitable reduction, finding that the Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) of 0.95 fell within the acceptable confidence interval, indicating the property was not inequitably assessed compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant requested an order for disclosure of documents from MPAC regarding a property not under appeal, pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

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

As the motion was unopposed by all parties, the Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents subject to its statutory terms.

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

MPAC returned an assessment of $598,000.

The Board reviewed MPAC's direct comparison approach and the appellant's arguments regarding property differences and equity.

The Board found the correct current value to be $600,500 based on comparable sales, and found no equitable reduction was required.

Because MPAC did not serve notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at $598,000.

The applicant failed to attend a peremptory hearing scheduled by telephone conference call.

The respondent municipality brought an oral motion to dismiss the application for non-attendance.

The Assessment Review Board noted that the applicant's representative was aware of the hearing date and time, and no reasons were provided for the absence.

Pursuant to Rule 104 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The parties reached an agreement to reduce the current value assessments for all three years.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order on consent reflecting the agreed-upon reductions, with no change to the residential classification.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2016 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board scheduled a hearing by telephone conference call.

The appellant and its representative failed to appear at the hearing without prior notice.

In accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the appeal was dismissed for failure to appear.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value was incorrect and that she paid an inequitable amount of property taxes compared to neighbouring properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct current value of the property was $954,000 based on the cost approach to value, reducing the 2019 assessment from $1,060,000.

The Board dismissed the request for an equity reduction, finding insufficient evidence of inequity and relying on the respondent's equity analysis report which indicated no adjustment was warranted.

The appellants requested a review of a Board decision that denied their motion to apply a 2019 property assessment settlement to the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants had not filed appeals for 2017 and 2018 after MPAC closed their requests for reconsideration for failing to provide requested information.

The Acting Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no errors of law or fact.

The Board held that sections 44(1) and 45 of the Assessment Act require an active appeal to reopen an assessment, and section 40(4) only allows the Board to extend the deadline for a request for reconsideration if the extension is sought during the applicable taxation year.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss several property assessment appeals because the appellant property owner failed to file a Statement of Issues by the required deadline.

The appellant argued the appeals should not be dismissed because MPAC failed to schedule a hearing, but provided no explanation for its failure to file the Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with Rule 24(e) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In a property assessment appeal concerning an industrial cheese production facility, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of various documents from the property owner, Kraft Heinz Canada ULC.

MPAC sought documents relating to the recent sale of the business, as well as documents supporting Kraft's claims for functional and external obsolescence.

Kraft opposed the motion, arguing the documents were either irrelevant, privileged, or that the requests were disproportionate.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion for disclosure, finding that the requested documents were relevant to the issues in dispute and that their production was proportionate to the complexity and significance of the valuation issues.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value of $523,000 was too high and seeking an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and determined the correct current value to be $489,000.

The Board found that an equity reduction was not required as the assessment to sales ratio of comparable properties fell within acceptable standards.

The assessment was reduced to $489,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached home on water for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value of $427,000 was too high and should be reduced to $277,500 based on their private purchase price of $300,000.

MPAC argued the value should be $425,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found the private sale was not the best evidence of current value as it was not exposed to the open market and was significantly lower than similar properties.

Relying on two comparable sales on the same street, the Board reduced the assessment to $353,000.

The Board declined to apply an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding MPAC's level of appraisal fell within acceptable standards.