OARB 2020

The appellant requested the reinstatement of property tax assessment appeals that were dismissed after it failed to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant provided uncontradicted evidence that it did not receive notice of the hearing event, which was sent by regular mail.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to appear through no fault of its own and that natural justice required the appeals to be reinstated.

The request was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of her single-family dwelling, which MPAC had assessed at $679,000.

Both parties used the direct comparison approach but disagreed on time adjustment factors and locational adjustments.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' time adjustment factors due to lack of reliable evidence and relied on the unadjusted sale prices of comparable properties, including the subject property's actual 2014 purchase price of $640,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $640,000 and found no compelling evidence to warrant a further reduction for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a two-storey office building for the 2017-2020 taxation years, arguing the value was too high because it was based on market rents rather than the property's actual rents.

The Assessment Review Board held that, under the income approach to value, market rents must be used rather than actual rents.

Applying a market rent of $10.50 per square foot derived from comparable leases in effect on the valuation day, the Board reduced the assessment from $1,523,000 to $1,325,000.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellants argued the assessment of $542,000 was too high and should be reduced to $400,000 based on comparable sales.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a current value of $691,000 but requested the assessment be confirmed at $542,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $608,000 based on the best comparable sales evidence.

The Board also determined that no equity adjustment was required, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $542,000 for both the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision regarding vacant unit tax rebates for an industrial complex for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

Following an interim decision, the parties submitted agreed-upon calculations for the rebates.

The Board corrected minor clerical errors in the interim decision and ordered the municipality to pay the agreed rebate amounts for 2015 and 2016, while dismissing the appeal for 2017.

The moving parties, Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and MPAC, brought a motion to extend the time to file a request for review and to reinstate appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a settlement conference.

The parties had failed to attend the settlement conference due to a mistaken belief that it had been cancelled, and had already executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Assessment Review Board found that fairness weighed in favour of granting the reinstatement, noting the lack of prejudice and the fact that all parties supported the motion.

The Board extended the time and reinstated the appeals to allow the executed Minutes of Settlement to be processed.

The appellant appealed the 2017 to 2020 property assessments of a vacant commercial property, arguing the current value assessment should be reduced to $300,000 due to a prior expropriation and septic issues.

The respondent presented a comparable sale supporting a value of $421,582.34.

The Assessment Review Board found the comparable sale to be the best evidence of value and determined the current value to be $422,000.

However, because the respondent did not serve a notice of increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at the returned value of $389,000.

The City of Toronto appealed the property assessments for several properties.

Later, the City withdrew its appeals.

The property owners requested reinstatement, arguing that MPAC had previously served a notice to request a higher assessment under the Board's Former Rules, which precluded the City from withdrawing as of right under the Current Rules.

The Assessment Review Board agreed, finding that pleadings and notices served under the Former Rules remained valid and were not nullified by the transition to the Current Rules.

The appeals were reinstated, subject to the City's right to bring a motion for leave to withdraw.

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

The 2018 appeal related to an omitted assessment, while the 2019 and 2020 appeals related to regular assessments.

At the hearing, the parties reached a consent 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.

The moving parties sought permission to file late appeals of their property tax assessments for the 2008 to 2016 taxation years, arguing they had overpaid taxes on two adjacent vacant lots.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

For the 2009 to 2016 taxation years, the moving parties failed to meet the statutory precondition of filing a Request for Reconsideration with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

For the 2008 taxation year, the moving parties failed to satisfy the requirements under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they did not provide evidence that they failed to receive the assessment notice or that they filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his request for an extension of time to file an appeal regarding the reclassification of his property.

The appellant argued the Board made an error of fact regarding when he received his Notice of Assessment and when he filed his appeal.

The Board found that the appellant became aware of the assessment on June 21, 2018, when he received his tax bill, and that he filed his request within the required 30-day period.

The request for review and the extension of time to file a late appeal were granted.

The City of Toronto appealed the property assessments for several properties.

Later, the City withdrew its appeals, believing it could do so as of right under the Current Rules.

The property owners requested reinstatement, arguing that MPAC had previously served a notice to request a higher assessment under the Former Rules, which precluded withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that pleadings and notices served under the Former Rules remained valid and were not nullified by the transition to the Current Rules.

Therefore, the appeals were withdrawn in error and were ordered reinstated, subject to the City's right to bring a motion for leave to withdraw.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of a residential property located in a floodplain and zoned as open space.

MPAC assessed the property at $3,176,000 for 2019, while the appellant argued for a value of $200,000 or $315,031.17.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' proposed valuations and methodologies.

Using MPAC's best comparable sale and applying appropriate negative adjustments for heavy traffic, floodplain, and lack of green space, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,261,000.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity.

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

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed the property at $1,090,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $510,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $740,000.

Applying an equitable reduction pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board further reduced the assessment to $670,000.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of a residential property.

The appellant argued the hearing member erred by treating MPAC's valuation analyst as an expert rather than a fact witness, and by failing to apply a 0.936 equitable reduction factor to the accepted current value of $1,371,000.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the analyst properly provided opinion evidence and that an equitable reduction should not be applied to MPAC's assessed value because the reduction is already inherently included in the mass appraisal model.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years due to the Appellants' failure to provide a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

The Appellants had obtained an extension from MPAC but failed to obtain consent from the City.

The Board found that while the Appellants failed to comply with the Rules, the breach had been cured by the subsequent filing of the Statement of Issues and an expert report.

Given the lack of overwhelming prejudice to the City and the severe consequences of dismissal, the Board denied the motion to dismiss.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the City of Brampton and property owners to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors resulted in the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium unit roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that palpable errors existed, it declined to exercise its discretion to correct them.

The Board held that the municipality's failure to file timely appeals was due to its own internal policy limitations and mismanagement, making it neither unreasonable nor unfair to enforce the statutory filing deadlines.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The appellants argued that the return on the roll value of $1,397,000 should be confirmed as the current value and that an equity adjustment should be applied to that value.

MPAC presented evidence of comparable sales indicating a higher current value but recommended confirming the roll value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' statutory arguments, determined the current value to be $1,646,000 based on comparable sales, and applied an Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.921 to achieve equity, resulting in an adjusted current value of $1,516,000.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling.

The appellant argued that MPAC improperly nullified a 2017 Request for Reconsideration (RfR), denying the right to appeal for 2017 and 2018.

The Board found that MPAC did not nullify the RfR; rather, the appellant failed to provide requested information, rendering the RfR deficient.

On the issue of valuation, the Board preferred a comparable sale on the same street and applied a time-adjusted sale price per square foot to determine the current value at $2,965,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction, finding the median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 was not substantially below 1.00.

The moving party brought a motion on behalf of the municipality and property owners to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 1995 to 2011 taxation years.

The errors involved the double taxation of a golf course that was assessed both under a parent roll number and individual condominium roll numbers.

Although the Assessment Review Board found that the errors were palpable, it declined to exercise its discretion to create appeals.

The Board held that the municipality's reliance on the assessing authority to correct the errors, rather than filing timely appeals, did not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting historical errors outside the statutory time limits.