OARB 2021

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $3,312,300 based on the direct comparison approach using five comparable sales.

The Board also applied an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in an equitable value of $2,981,000.

The returned assessment was ordered reduced accordingly.

The requestors sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value of their property following 2019 alterations.

The Board had previously rejected MPAC's comparable sales evidence and instead used the requestors' evidence of the $47,000 cost of alterations to increase the assessment from $803,000 to $850,000.

On review, the requestors argued the Board erred by not resetting the effective year built to 1983, by not reverting to the previous assessment when MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof, and by using the cost approach without allowing rebuttal.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no violation of procedural fairness or significant error of law or fact.

The Board noted it has a statutory duty to determine current value based on the best evidence available and cannot simply revert to a previous assessment when MPAC fails to meet its burden.

The moving party requested to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2021 taxation year.

The moving party argued that it did not receive the notice of reconsideration because it was mailed to an old address, despite having notified MPAC of an address change.

The Board found that the deadline to file an appeal was August 30, 2021, and the appeal was filed two days late on September 1, 2021.

The Board dismissed the motion, concluding it had no jurisdiction to accept the late appeal because the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to exclude an affidavit filed by the appellant in reply during a written hearing before the Assessment Review Board.

Vaughan argued the affidavit was filed late and constituted improper case-splitting.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit merely cured a technical defect by swearing to unsworn documents previously filed on time.

The Board concluded there was no prejudice to Vaughan and granted Vaughan an opportunity to file amended responding submissions.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a cancellation of her 2020 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board conducted a contextual analysis of the household's income, expenses, and assets, including Ontario Disability Support Program funds and student grants.

The Board found that the applicant was unable to pay a portion of the taxes due to the sickness of multiple household members.

The Board ordered a reduction of the 2020 property taxes by $5,072.93.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax appeal, arguing it was invalidly filed under s. 357(8) of the Municipal Act.

The City contended that the statutory deadline for the municipality to render a decision had been extended by Ontario Regulation 73/20, which suspended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the appellant had filed the appeal in a good faith attempt to meet the statutory deadline and that the City failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from allowing the appeal to proceed.

The applicant applied to the Township of Laird to have his 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Township delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicant's necessary household expenses exceeded his income, which consisted primarily of a disability pension and government supports.

The Board concluded the applicant was unable to pay the taxes due to sickness and ordered the 2020 property taxes in the amount of $2,020.74 cancelled.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2020 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application because the applicants failed to comply with a procedural order requiring them to provide sufficient financial documentation to support their claim, despite being granted multiple adjournments.

The appellant applied for a refund of property taxes, alleging the municipality incorrectly calculated tax adjustments relating to minutes of settlement for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 taxation years.

The municipality argued the application was filed late.

The Assessment Review Board found the application was filed within the prescribed time limit, as the time began when the municipality implemented the settlements in 2018.

The Board further found the municipality made a factual error in calculating the taxes by applying the wrong tax rate, resulting in an overcharge.

The Board ordered the municipality to refund $62,821.00 to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large-format retail store for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was the highest and best use (HABU) of the properties.

The respondent assessment corporation argued the HABU was high-rise mixed-use development, while the appellant argued it was the current use.

The Assessment Review Board found that the respondent failed to prove that a rezoning for high-rise development was reasonably probable within a reasonable timeframe, or that such development was financially feasible.

Consequently, the Board accepted the appellant's HABU of current use and adopted the appellant's cost approach valuation, reducing the assessments to a total of approximately $10.75 million.

The City of Greater Sudbury requested the Assessment Review Board to summon Dale Panday, a director of Hanscomb Limited, as a witness for an upcoming hearing regarding the assessment of various mining properties.

The City sought his testimony on the accuracy of the Automated Costing System component values compared to actual construction costs in Sudbury.

The Board refused the request, finding that the City failed to provide a sufficient summary of the expected evidence, did not establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge, failed to identify the witness in the prior case management order, and made the request too late in the proceeding, which would cause unacceptable delay.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $484,000 was too high and should be reduced to $384,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and equity analyses provided by both the appellants and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board found that the best evidence supported MPAC's valuation and that no equity reduction was warranted.

The assessment was confirmed at $484,000.

The appellant requested a review of a Board decision that dismissed her property assessment appeal after she failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing.

She argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying her request for an in-person hearing via an email she did not see, as she was caring for her son following surgery.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no breach of natural justice or error of fact, as the appellant had received the original notice of hearing, the Board responded to her request at the email address she provided, and she did not request an adjournment or notify the Board of her inability to attend.

The Assessment Review Board issued an amended decision to correct minor errors in its final decision regarding the property assessment of several gravel pits.

Following an interim decision, the parties agreed on revised assessments, classifications, and apportionments for the taxation years 2017 to 2021.

The Board accepted the parties' interpretation of the interim decision, which included classifying specific portions of source ponds and extraction areas as industrial or residential.

The Board ordered that the representative properties be classified and assessed in accordance with the agreed-upon schedules.

The City of Windsor requested the reinstatement of two property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Skyline Commercial Real Estate Holdings Inc. The City argued that the procedural steps in the Schedule of Events constituted a hearing event, which would have prevented the withdrawal without leave.

The Assessment Review Board found that the procedural steps did not constitute a hearing event and that the appellant was entitled to withdraw the appeals as of right under Rule 27(b) since no party had given notice seeking a higher assessment prior to the withdrawal.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for non-attendance.

The appellant alleged that the Board violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, including allegations of bias and collaboration between the Board member and the respondent.

The Board denied the request for review, finding no evidence to support the allegations of bias or collaboration.

The Board concluded that the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing but failed to attend, failed to file required evidence, and failed to provide a sworn affidavit to support its request for review.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a settlement conference.

The requester's property manager submitted that he did not receive notice of the hearing because he was working from home due to COVID-19 restrictions and lacked access to the office business system.

The Board found that the requester failed to attend through no fault of its own and noted that the requester had already accepted a written offer to settle from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals, ordering the parties to file executed Minutes of Settlement within 97 days.

The requesters sought to reinstate their property assessment appeals after they were dismissed for non-attendance at a hearing.

The requesters submitted that they did not receive notice of the hearing because it was mailed to their municipal address rather than their P.O. Box.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requesters failed to attend through no fault of their own and that natural justice required the appeals to be reinstated.

The request for reinstatement was granted.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their residential property for the 2019 taxation year.

They argued that the Board heard false or misleading evidence and that there was new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, based on a newspaper publication regarding time adjustment calculations.

The Board found that the publication did not constitute false or misleading evidence from an opposing party or witness, and that the information was available prior to the original hearing.

The request for review was denied as an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a farm with commercial/industrial operations for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellant argued that issue estoppel should apply based on a 2014 Board decision, and that the current value should be $180,000.

The Board dismissed the issue estoppel argument because the valuation dates and issues were different.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence based on the cost approach and direct comparison approach, finding the correct current value was $1,278,000.

However, since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $847,000.